If ever there was evidence that the Climate Change zealots have lost control of their once universally accepted false doctrine, this is it.
You don't have to be a sycophantic supporter of the message that is based on a false premise – that fossil fuel use and livestock green house gas emissions are the main cause of global warming - in order to realise that the world has been duped by those who refuse to accept their own scientific truths.
My guess is that the real reason why fossil fuel use is not mentioned in the final communique is because the price of membership is simply beyond what most nations are prepared to pay.
It is interesting to note that even the rich nations who have been flogging this "dead horse" mantra ever since it became instrumental in helping to win elections (particularly in first world countries like Australia) are now trying to explain their conditional support for policies that have sent energy prices through the roof.
Of course their politically correct adoption of these social and economically destructive programmes (resulting in unaffordable energy prices) is now ranging as the one thing that will ensure their days on the treasury benches are numbered.
But ironically, the key to their demise will also be a factor in determining opposition parties ability to sense the public mood and react in time with counter policies that are capable of repairing the widespread damage.
Same goes for governments currently in power like out own National led coalition.
The cost of energy and finding a long term solution that will keep prices at acceptable levels is the one thing that will determine the type of future governments we choose.
In the context of this issue and how it is affecting economic growth, it is understandable why previoysly agnostic c⁸ountries have chosen or are seriously considering the nuclear option as being the most cost efficient and reliable source of clean energy.
I believe that future governments throughout the world, including ones like ours who have previously rejected the nuclear option, will be forced to adopt policies that are a mix of fossil fuel based generation and affordable nuclear alternatives.
That doesn't mean that wind and solar do not have a place in the mix but their unreliability will ensure their use is limited to being a backup.
In the end, the energy policies we adopt will determine not only the governments we deserve but, and probably more importantly, the nature and speed of our economic growth.
You can't have one without the other.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
19 comments:
That cheap energy is widely considered a significant driver for economic growth, is completely lost on the leaders of GB, Aust, Canada and New Zealand as their delusional leaders still cling to their Net-Zero fantasy.
'Same goes for governments currently in power like out own National led coalition.'
I trust you are not implying that LBGT (Lab light/bloody Greens/Tea Party) would no longer support/promote/believe in the climate change global con?
Don't think Shane Jones, for one, has ever been a true believer.
It has taken some brave swimming against the current for many, to get to this point.
If CO2 build up from fossil fules is not the main cause of global warming, what is? the fact thet counter measures are not practical with more or les democratic sytems does not make the diagnosis wrong.
Robert - we’re coming out of an ice age plus they’ve been massaging to data for decades and they still can’t make it a consistent climb.
It’s all unpopular societal change sold on a lie based on flawed 1970s antihumanist “limits of growth”
They thought a shortage of copper was going to doom us š¤¦♂️
Hi Robert,
Climate Alarmism is the greatest lie ever told. It was cooked up by the Club of Rome in the 70’s to preserve the world’s finite resources. I think the Club of Rome morphed into the WEF that sold itself to globalists gullible enough to fall for this net zero nonsense. The corrupt MSM feel it their god given right to shape public opinion with their unsubstantiated propaganda.
It is very hard to get some balance in our MSM. Groundswell and the Methane Science Accord have brought out Dr Will Happer for a speaking tour. He will be speaking at 12 events around the country.
https://methane-accord.co.nz/events
The Minister for Climate Alarmism and our PM can get on the MSM but our hard working and very smart farmers get no right of reply.
I hope those reading will go to hear Dr Happer.
Our Minister for Climate Change or our Green PM do not want to hear what he has to say. I say vote for Act.
It is over 2 minutes.
What a Wonderful World -- Thanks to CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4nzRFhwuuU
Good point Chuck. I will certainly be attending Dr Will Happer’s presentation. I don’t expect to see any politicians, NIWA or Stuff people in attendance.
when is Luxon going to wake up?
I can help with an explanation for the folks above (thanks for the prompt, Rob)
Climate change is primarily caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, enhancing the natural greenhouse effect and trapping heat.
Main Greenhouse Gases: Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) absorb heat radiated from Earth's surface, preventing it from escaping to space. CO₂ levels have risen about 50% since pre-industrial times due to human emissions, while methane comes from livestock digestion and natural gas, and nitrous oxide from fertilizers.
Primary Human Causes: Burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) for energy, transport, and industry releases the largest share of CO₂ and other gases.
Deforestation reduces trees that absorb CO₂, releasing stored carbon when forests are cleared.
Agriculture, including livestock farming and fertilizer use, emits methane and nitrous oxide.
Natural factors like volcanic activity or solar variations play minor roles compared to human influences, which dominate observed warming since the mid-20th century.
Hope that helps y’all.
Are you ok, Rob Beeechy? That’s a creative conspiracy, but not reality. Climate science is built on decades of peer-reviewed data across physics, chemistry, and meteorology—not the Club of Rome. The WEF doesn’t dictate global climate policy, and “net zero” came from scientific consensus on limiting warming to 1.5°C to preserve ecosystems and economies. It’s easier to blame some cabal than confront measurable CO₂ concentrations rising from 280ppm to over 420ppm, but the atmosphere doesn’t care about narratives—only chemistry.
Which event will you be going to, Rob?
Wed 10th of Dec. Have you noticed how the alarmists cower behind anonymity?
Dr. William Happer's claim that most 20th-century warming stems from natural causes, not CO2, is demolished by attribution studies showing over 100% of recent warming is anthropogenic, with natural factors cooling the planet. He admits CO2 warms but insists its effect is tiny—pure fiction, as satellite data, ice cores, and physics confirm CO2's logarithmic forcing has driven ~1.2°C of the observed 1.3°C rise since 1880, with no natural explanation matching the speed or pattern.
Happer peddles that climate models fail spectacularly; wrong—models nail global surface warming trends, ocean heat uptake, and stratospheric cooling, hindcasting accurately when run from 1850. His "no acceleration in sea levels" lie crumbles under tide gauge and altimeter data proving rates doubled from 1.7 mm/yr (1900-1990) to 4.5 mm/yr now, tied directly to GHG-forced ice melt and expansion.
Extreme weather? Happer says no CO2 link—bull****, as heatwaves are 5-100x more likely, wildfires burn 2x the area, and heavy rains intensify 7% per °C warming, all per IPCC AR6 and peer-reviewed attribution. His "CO2 greening boon" ignores nutrient limits, droughts, and pests slashing net benefits; studies he cites were twisted or retracted, confirming harms dwarf gains.
Happer's methane "irrelevant" paper misframes century-scale forcing as annual trivia, ignoring its 2.5x CO2 potency over 100 years. No climate publications since the 1990s, just denial orgs like CO2 Coalition; APS rejected his petition 99-0. He's a physicist cosplaying expertise, butchering basic climate physics while fossil fuel allies cheer.
Rob why have a go at authors when you know you’re intellectually and scientifically armed to betray dismantle the feeble points they put forward? The reasoned argument on this site makes it a beacon amongst the failing echo chambers of other woke corners of the internet. Join us in open debate!
It appears that reaction to anonymous comments in this newsletter is rather subjective. If you agree then it’s authoritative, but disagreement elicits charges of cowardice, which, obviously, is to play the man, not the ball. My view is that identification of authorship definitely is more influential and is much the preferable. But then, one may feel strongly about an issue, but identity may result in disadvantage in one’s job or business, in personal relationships, to say nothing of political opportunity. In that case, anonymous is preferable to silence. Without the option, it must be said, there’s no doubt that robust and informative debate would suffer.
During the world covid emergency, the greatest experiment to debunk a myth was carried out. An experiment so huge but missed or ignored by those that have turned climate alarmism into a religion. To halt the spread of Covid the world closed down for months. Millions of aircraft were grounded, highways were emptied of traffic, industry ground to a standstill and China no longer wore a gown of smog and for the first time was visible from outer space.
However, lo and behold, the menace of the atmosphere to some, (I would call it the Alexia of life) CO2, continued to expand merrily with or without man’s help.
Never let the truth get in the road of a good story.
The Minister of Climate Change alarmism and our PM have declined to go to any of the 12 events to say to farmers why they should vote for National instead of ACT, the new farmers' party.
Or risk having to publicly apologise to MP Maureen Pugh.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.