Aaand Christopher Luxsout still holds to the now so widely demolished fallacy the world can slow and stop gradual cyclical warming of the third rock from the sun where a nuclear reactor is generating heat. Dear old Luxout will cripple New Zealand then watch in wonderment while Peters and CHipkins set about continuing to divide and impoverish this Nation.
So the Party that once held to a Principle that welfare will not solve problems only exacerbate them in alleviating the worst outcomes is now going to hand sixty millions of taxpayer provided dollars to a corporate to compensate them for the Carbon tax rort they emphatically deny is crippling every commercial activity on these islands to keep the Monopoly Cement division open.
That cement factory is a part of the Fletcher Building corporation that in its latest full year had revenues of over seven yes seven billion dollars.
A company that began life building state houses for the first Labour government has been dominant in local construction ever since now finds, just as have multitudes of commercial enterprises over the additional costs imposed by the myriad of wealth transfers allied to fossil fuels and CO2 alarmism.
One lone National MP attempted to answer a constituents inquiry only to be publicly ridiculed by her leader who continues to decline to even discuss the Paris agreements destructive economic disaster now almost universally dishonoured by the rest of the world. The draconian economic drag of the Paris accords do not involve the leading four nations of CO2 emitters.
The US withdrawn for a second time China India and Russia were never to pay the wealth transfer taxes that are crippling New Zealand and Australia while they endeavour to assist in feeding the world. but our esteemed, at least in his own enfeebled mind, Leader continues to bow down to the United Nations sanctions now demonstrably admitted to have increased costs for a major corporate who are now just another Beneficiary this time on corporate welfare.
I will ask again if paying taxes to unknown destinations is going to reduce impacts of entirely natural and somewhat predictable changes for earths volatile climate when judged over millennia. why in hell does it not become equally possible to reduce droughts with additional taxes?
Australian once distant fourth in electoral support, “One Nation” under Pauline Hanson has now rocketed to first among parties consigning both the Coalition partners Liberal and National to a near obscurity that threatens their very survival, while Christopher Luxout continues to accompany their now embattled poll numbers in a McCawber like “something will turn up”.
It just might be only electoral chaos that is coming down the line?
Gravedodger posts regularly on No Minister - where this article was sourced.
9 comments:
“entirely natural and somewhat predictable changes for earths volatile climate when judged over millennia”
That’s not what the evidence says, but since when has evidence ever mattered to opinion writers. Repeat the lie and it shall become the truth!
Yes I agree. A lot of these organisation's such as UN and WHO are far too radical now and have lost their way. They are screwing the west, but turn a blind eye to nations that should know betterand have the wealth and means to contribute. I have a better idea and way forward. Those (usually on the left) who love these groups can sell their houses to support their cause. Ive never seen one leftie put their money where their mouth is. That tells you everything you need to know.
I never heard my Careers Advisor at school suggest a career in "climate change" would be a lucrative occupation.
To repeat myself: Talking of Handouts, how can this government give taxpayers money to Fletchers when it can't find any money to sustain mental health lines ? Why didn't Fletchers get a loan from a bank like taxpayers have to do. Why was it a grant and not a loan ? What sort of morals does the National Party have ? So much for Luxon's professed Christianity. Vote ACT instead.
Anonymous@7.03, sorry to disappoint (perhaps rain on your parade might be a more climatically-based metaphor), but that is exactly what has happened; read some books and papers and get evidence that actually refutes your stance.
Allen I’ve read heaps of books. We must read different books. The age of disinformation is nigh!
Allen? Entirely natural and predicated over millennia does not cover what has happened in the last 100 or so years. Books and evidence covers this well. What is it about the scientific method that you particularly don’t like? The hypothesis part, the evidence gathering part, the testing part, the conclusions part, or the review part?
What a pity the classical scientific method doesn't work perfectly outside labs where experimenters control all variables. Wherever there are non-replicable events involved, we have this problem. A slightly cynical way to put it is that the best we can hope for is to come up with predictive models that appear to work well after the event and then hope like blazes that key variables that we may not even be aware of don't screw up our predictions for the next cycle.
Anonymous@6.53 I have been a scientist all my working life and understand the process well. Do you? Small, frequent perturbations over a very short time span do not necessarily have the cause and effect you would wish and to somehow suggest that measurements over a century are reflective of the entire cosmic and planetary climate cycle shows a gross misunderstanding. Also, as Barend suggests, if it is the outcome of climate models you are relying on then you have an even bigger heuristic problem.
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.