How about leaving the thing (mobile phone) off?

Grace period over, police warn covert texters

Drivers are slipping back into “old habits” of using cellphones while driving and are now taking their eyes completely off the road to text covertly, police say.

Police have ended their grace period for drivers caught using a hand-held cellphone and are reporting a significant increase in the number of tickets being issued.

Although only 275 tickets were issued nationally in November, the month that driving while using a hand-held phone became illegal, Sergeant Scott Richardson of Christchurch expected it to be a lot higher now.

“When it came in we thought there would be tickets everywhere … but the compliance was awesome. But people fall back into old habits.”

Read the rest of the rest of the article here >>>


It may be me but would it not live a lot easier if we just leave the thing off or put it off before we go into the car or get into a conversation?

It has been less than a few decades ago that we did not use mobile phones simply because they were not there. And look at us now, I read articles about what the appropriate age is for kids to have a mobile phone about our continuous distraction and the risks associated with it especially when we are driving. When was the last time you were in a conversation where there was not some distraction because someone “just had to take this call” to find that apparently you conversation partner “had to talk about that movie or other program that was on tele last night” or otherwise matters that could simply have waited. Then coming back into the conversation there is the well known “where were we again.”

The police here is warning us about falling back into old habits, texting while we drive and since that is illegal now, we do it covertly. WHAT IS IT THAT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO RISK YOU OWN LIFE AND THAT OF OTHERS that needs to go into this text and could not wait until you were in a situation where you could do this safely? Just the other day, we almost got run over by someone that was actually leaving his premises and while backing out from his driveway was also busy texting, so busy in fact that he never saw the people at the end of the driveway. How sad is that?

My idea: just leave the thing off when you get behind the wheel. I know, I know, I am probably sounding like I am from another planet. But really, looking back at my own mobile history I know that while I was not that inclined to pick up the thing in the first place by myself, the tone of a message or a call coming in seemed irresistible. So, that problem was sorted quickly. And it had another advantage, it stopped using battery power especially important if your going through some of the no reception areas on the South Island.

And is it not the same  in social or business meetings. What is the message you are really conveying when you are letting yourself be distracted by those mobiles all the time. What are you telling the other side of your real time conversation if you are there sending texts messages while having a conversation? Imagine this: you are having a cup of coffee with a good friend and at some point he turns around with his or her back towards you to start another conversation, and from that moment on whenever you talk, you talk to your friends back. Well that in a way is what you are doing. I know I have been guilty of myself.

Always Connected… Come on?

With mobile connectivity came the myth that we needed to be connected and available wherever we are. And in all honesty it certainly has its advantages at times but, … at times. But most off all I cannot help but feeling that this continuous connectivity is nothing more than  a big distraction and mist of all another wake to fake you way to an impression of importance. And funnily those that really are usually have someone to take their calls when they are not there. And for the rest, “what’s up?” … “nothing much and twittering about it” … “how r u” … “here with guy pretending to be busy, pub @ 6?” …. In the meantime the person on the other side of the table is talking an you are NOT listening?

Seth Godin, I do not recall the specific of the where and when anymore, talked about how the social net is providing an opportunity for a lot of fake. I think the same applies to the mobile thingy for as far as the two can still be separated. Yet we are made to believe that this is essential. I remember some time ago in the Netherlands I had to get a mobile phone and entering the shop explaining that, the lady said:


Well duh for making phone calls or am I saying something strange here?

And true I have been using my mobile phone to take pictures for the reasons outlined in my world through a mobile phone post. But that was born out of an accident. What bothers me is that in all our ‘connectedness’ we do not seem to be realizing how it also created a ‘collective shallowness’, great for those that do coaching and consulting on how to have a meaningful conversation again as that is what we have apparently been losing as a craft.

I guess as far as I am concerned the answer is simple where it comes to step one in the program: DARE TO LEAVE THE THING OFF AT TIMES, so you can focus on what is really important at that time: your driving, your present conversation or meeting, enjoying your walk outside without distractions.

And those that see this not as an option I suggest make that one very important template that you can use to answer texts messages coming in:

“DROVE OFF A CLIFF (alternatively: against a tree) TRYING 2 ANSWER UR TXT. SEE U IN HOSPITAL OR HEAVEN.” A one button reply ready to go for when you mess up.

FALSE ALARM: Himalaya Gletchers

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown,” declared the disturbing headline ( in The Sunday Times of London. As it turn out the 2007 prediction by IPCC  that many Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 was a huge stuff up based on sources not thoroughly vetted. The UN panel recently admitted ( its mistake.

Of Campaigning Reports and Popular Science Magazines

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have had to admit that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who at the time was chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice’s working group on Himalayan glaciology, never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now admits the comment was “speculative”. Even though the 10-year-old New Scientist report was the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas! This could well turn out to be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. Subsequently consider that the IPCC was set up to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change. Could it maybe turn out to be that the  IPCC (as some claim) was not so much established for the reasons outlined previously but actually for no other purpose than to provide legitimacy to otherwise political agendas in which climate change is no longer the cause but a means for other unrelated purposes?

Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.” It’s a significant embarrassment for IPCC  which exists and is funded to provide quality scientific information on climate change and its implications.It all sounds like tales or gossip spreading through the neighborhood or the office, doesn’t it? Remember: these are big players, paid big bucks. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. In lauding the IPCC’s mobilization of scientific knowledge about climate change, the Nobel presenter said (,

Similar procedures to the IPCC’s should be considered as ways of approaching problems also in other fields.

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Like the IPCC, the WWF, now has issued a major retraction of their 2005 warning about Himalayan glacier melting projections, saying they failed to double-check the primary source. The secondary source WWF cited was a 1999 New Scientist ( magazine news article featuring an Indian scientist’s views that many Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 because of global warming.  According to the New York Times, in an email the scientist claimsto hve been “misquoted.” ( In a letter to Science Magazine Graham Cogley et all suggest ( that “2035” may represent inaccurate copying of “2350” from another report. The Trent University (Ontario, Canada) geographer who helped uncover the mistake, points out that

“nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose.”

Another Stuff Up?

Is it me or is this all sounding like some sort of a big mess or stuff up. I can’t help but thinking what other stuff ups will surface in the coming period. IS this perhaps providing an argument to keep science and state separated similarly to church and state?  Himalayan glaciers supply fresh water to rivers that impact millions of people in South Asia. The IPCC’s 2007 glacier statement ( warned:

“Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world . and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.”

A prominent Indian glaciologist disputed the IPCC 2007 statement in a 2009 Indian government report. IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri shot back, calling the report “voodoo science” that lacked peer review. Talk about the pot  calling the kettle black. The IPCC glacier prediction itself lacked peer review, something central to IPCC’s mission (

…to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change (emphasis reporter). … Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information.

Politics v Science

The WWF report which the IPCC cited was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper.  The difference is important as because of its status the WWF report was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Would that not have been exactly what you would have expected from the IPCC, or is it maybe that if findings or reports support the underlying agendas of the funding agencies, that is enough of an excuse to be slack? Even though the exposure of this ill-founded prediction, the IPCC, is still concerned about glacier melting, but called the prediction “poorly substantiated” and said “clear and well-established standards of evidence were not applied properly” in this case. I take it that also applies to the reporting standards of the IPCC.

Kiwi Involvement: incompetence, ignorance, slackness?

In an article in The Briefing Room by Ian Wishart we read:

…it is hard to believe none of the many kiwis working on the report failed to read it and comprehend the massive schoolboy errors.

Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. “It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

Among five errors identified in their report was also an assertion that Himalayan glaciers would shrink from 500,000 square kilometers in area to just 100,000 square kilometers. In fact, glaciologists have confirmed the Himalayan glaciers only covered 33,000 square kilometers to begin with.

The New Zealanders listed as “reviewers” or “contributing authors” of Working Group 2 include glaciologist Jim Salinger of NIWA, David Wratt (NIWA’s top climate scientist) and Howard Larsen, principal analyst for New Zealand’s Ministry for the Environment and NZ’s representative to the IPCC. Salinger and Wratt were senior figures on the IPCC AR4 reports, including the one in question – and Wratt was a Vice Chair of the IPCC’s Working Group 1 report as well.

The full list of kiwis who may have failed to spot the errors (many below may not be glacier experts, but some will be and in my opinion should have known) and bring them to Pachauri’s attention are:


Baxter, Kay, Ministry for the Environment

Becken, Susanne, Landcare Research

Becker, Julia, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences

Bell, Robert, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Collins, Eva, University of Waikato

Dymond, Stuart, Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Trade

Fairbairn, Paul L, SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience

Gray, Warren, Ministry for the Environment

Hales, Simon, University of Otago

Hall, Alistair, HortResearch

Hannah, John, University of Otago

Hay, John, University of Waikato

Hughey, Ken, Lincoln University

Kenny, Gavin J, Earthwise Consulting Ltd

Kerr, Suzi, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research Institute

King, Darren, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Larsen, Howard, Ministry for the Environment

Lawrence, Judy, Climate Change National Science Strategy Committee

Lawson, Wendy, University of Canterbury

Maclaren, Piers, Piers Maclaren & Associates Ltd

McKerchar, Alastair, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Mullan, A. Brett, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Plume, Helen, Ministry for the Environment

Porteous, Alan, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

Power, Vera, Ministry for the Environment

Purdie, Jennifer, University of Waikato

Rys, Gerald, Ministry of Research, Science and Technology

Saggar, Surinder, Landcare Research

Stephens, Peter, Ministry for the Environment

Stroombergen, Adolf, Infometrics

Waugh, John Robert, Opus International Consultants Ltd.

Weaver, Sean, Victoria University of Wellington

Whitehead, David, Landcare Research

Wilson, Toni, Ministry for the Environment

Woodward, Alistair, University of Auckland

Wratt, David, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research


Tord Kjellstrom, University of Auckland

Darren King, NIWA

Gavin Henry, Earthwise Consulting

Guy Penny, NIWA

Jim Salinger, NIWA

Roderick Henderson, NIWA

Matt Dunn, NIWA

Blair Fitzharris, University of Otago

Simon Hales, University of Otago

Alistair Woodward, University of Auckland

John Hay, University of Waikato

Richard Warrick, University of Waikato

Susanne Becken, Landcare

In all fairness: many of the people listed may well be involved in policy no particular glacier expertise or at best with the depth of a pancake.  Some however will be experts and should have recognized the impossibility of the claims, all of them could have seen the methodological issues at hand. If we go from the premise that these people actually read the report, do we have to conclude here then that they failed to understand what they were actually reading? And if they did identify the errors: is there any evidence that they reported it, an if not why not? That does not give me much hope for the future. What faith can we have in our New Zealand scientists and moreover the IPCC.

What’s next?

This global warming campaign is getting more and more dubious or questionable. We have just come out of another controversy, variously dubbed “ClimateGate” and “SwiftHack, in which hacked emails suggest some scientists may have sought to conceal data that did not support their climate change views. And now this. All I can wonder is: WHAT’S NEXT?

Recently I advised that it is important you start taking your own responsibility (Climate Change Apologetics) in getting a clear view on what is actually happening when it comes to climate change. At Dierckx & Associates I published a post that may help you in doing your own research and also to hopefully avoid you making the same mistakes as our well respected experts on these matters.


Climate Change Apologetics: a new field?

I am not going into the who’s right or wrong here. What I do like to point out is that it is all too easy to fall for the “vox populi.” The climate change matter is one with many angle and most of all many different political agendas that may well have nothing to do with something unrelated to climate change.

As a Christian it makes sense to take good care of our planet, God’s creation. But that does not necessarily mean that you need to agree with carbon emission schemes and global governance agendas that seem to be behind all this. If there is anything that this video outlines it is that it is not smart to base your opinions on scientific reports issue by campaigning organizations (the Al Gore traveling circus, Greenpeace) without checking the other options and data as well as the integrity thereof. At the same time if there is anything the recent developments appear to show is that scientists have a responsibility to make available in understandable terms the data that opposes or better yet respectfully answers the matters raised by climate change promoters.

I see a new area emerging here: Climate change Apologetics, analogue to Christian Apologetics. I don’t think that anyone will deny that climate change is real and has been forever. At the same time we are supposed to believe that the climate change is caused by men and that in turn is supposed to support political initiatives such as global governance and emission trading schemes, with all the costs associated with that for business and the individual in the end. Being exposed as an uninformed protester is certainly not helping your case if you are a “believer” of the verly likely to be “false teachings.”

For New Zealand I guess we can therefore give a big thank you to amongst others Ian Wishart for sticking his neck out amongst others through his book AIR CON ( and his magazines.

Most of all this video and the “round 2” one illustrates that we have an obligation to ourselves to be informed where “objective science” is being used to dramatically change out lives in terms of regulation, governance and finances.

So,…. off you go, start looking around and start thinking for yourself.

Posted via web from Dierckx & Associates


I guess John Key must have felt better of staying in Australia with all the heat going on: Rodney Hide and the Maori seats and on top of the smacking debate. New Zealand voted against “a smack as  part of good parental correction” being a criminal offence, whatever the media and even the pro and anti smacking are crying in the media. John Key took a series of proposals to Cabinet today following Friday’s referendum victory for opponents of the 2007 child discipline law change.

I am still wondering whether most of the people that voted no, despite my own preference for that, actually understood that it was not about whether a parental correctional smack should be allowed, but whether or not it should be classified as a criminal offence.

I again point out that it does not necessarily mean when you voted NO that you are PRO smacking. Could it maybe be that you do not see how a correctional smack warrants being classified as a criminal offence. Criminalizing should in my view be an “ultimum remedium” and therefore reserved for those acts that cannot be seen as anything else but a crime. The debate and referendum however has lost all its true perspective in any event as it is turned into a are you for “assaulting your children” or not. (That is the position of amongst others Sue Bradford and followers.) It is quite some distance from a “parental correctional smack” to “assaulting your children” I would imagine. It is also a distance from personally being a against a correctional smack to considering that it should be a criminal offence. he discussion and debate however seems to be polarized as FOR or AGAINST smacking. Subtle differences I admit but played out to their max to influence public opinion. 

All that aside, I am intrigued by John Key’s persistence in this matter. What is it that democratically elected members can sort of impose their own perspective or moral values this ignoring what the people in a democratic society want. They want the correctional smack out of the Crimes Act. Do Helen and mob have something on Key? The key to Key? Allegedly he would have said that “parents who lightly smack their children should not fear being treated like criminals, and that he would not ignore the referendum.”

I would like to point out that it is not how you are being treated, but the fundamental principle that despite of your treatment YOU ARE COMMITTING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE. the fact that you will not be treated as a criminal is hardly reassuring. Many high profile fraudsters end or ended up not being treated as a criminal, but does  that make them less of a criminal?  Many don’t get caught, therefore are not treated as a criminal. It’s all non-arguments.

The referendum is pretty clear in what it tried to answer. The outcomes are equally clear. We were asked whether a smack as part of good parental correction should be a criminal offence and we said NO.

Arguments that no one has been prosecuted are not compelling, arguments or proposals that would implicate police discretion are equally not convincing. The fact that there are many potential defences should you be prosecuted is of no importance either.
The simple fact remains that whenever a parent decides that a correctional smack is in its place – based on responsible parental values and experiences – and decides to follow up on that and gives his/her child a light smack on the bottom, that same parent needs to consider that he or she technically committed a crime. To illustrate:

Now suppose your neighbor we’ll call her “Auntie Sue”, sees what is happening, than she could report it as a crime and in Auntie Sue’s case you bet your bottom dollar that she will report that you are “assaulting” your child. There you are, things have settled down and you and your child are by now sitting on the couch reading from “Thomas the Tank Engine” or well whatever and there’s a police officer ringing your doorbell asking questions about a reported incident of assaulting your child, or equally bad, CYFS is doing the same. Regardless of whether you are prosecuted or not, you are investigated as a suspect of a crime that technically has been committed if this law remains unchanged. The mere follow up and questions are enough to make you feel as suspected to be a criminal and since you technically have committed an offence, you are.

Personally I can’t help but feeling that despite not changing the law “if it works” is an unconvincing approach, in fact a spineless approach. Gandhi once said: “Cowards can never be moral.”  And it shows.

Pragmatic arguments such as not wanting valuable parliamentary time being usurped by a renewed smacking debate are a blatant denial of democracy in the workings and also not a valid argument. Will we start taking criminal offences out of the Crimes Act an/or others “if they don’t work?”

Have Key and all those others before him forgotten that they are elected to REPRESENT the people and that it is our tax money that pays their bills and perks? A law was pushed through in 2007 that had no democratic support, Parliament, by allowing this law to pass, already ignored its voters, the people once. And now again? The referendum is to inform out politicians of our opinion, the elections are there to enforce our sentiments upon those we choose to represent us. These boys and girls in the Beehive are getting things mixed up. Parliamentarians are send to parliament every three years as representatives of their voters, they should therefore be adhering to what we want them to do not the other way around. And here we have a John Key, prior to the referendum already telling us that regardless of the outcome he will not change the law. And basically sticking to that position despite the outcomes. Have those politicians  forgotten that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand never wanted this law in the first place? No-one wanted a back-office “compromise” deal of John Key and Helen Clark and in any event, NO ONE PERMITTED THESE POLITICIANS TO GO AHEAD AN DO IT ANYWAY. An yet, here we see it being done twice!

Then again, try to place yourself in Key’s shoes: changing the law in accordance with the documented wishes of the people would mean losing face of course, cause how will you explain agreeing to this unwanted law change in the first place and subsequently changing it back. Step up John, and admit you made a mistake in 2007 and are now prepared to admit this and set the record straight. Now that would be the act of a REPRESENTATIVE. That would be a Parliament that represents and would justify the people to voluntarily comply with, because it represents the consensus of public opinion. TIME TO RETHINK THE BASICS I would say.

Ignoring the referendum results, is like seeing democracy die for the benefit of ELECTED politicians, that have become so power hungry, that they think they have it within their right to ignore those who elected them in the first place. If that is the case, we may as well stop pretending and admit that voting rights are no more than window dressing and keeping up a democratic myth so as to keep the population quiet and unaware that we are actually living under some form of dictatorship.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta] Air Con author preparing to sue Herald, and Hot Topic


13 August 2009

Air Con author preparing defamation papers against Herald columnist and newspaper

The author of an international bestseller on climate change is preparing to sue the New Zealand Herald and one of its journalists for defamation.

Ian Wishart, whose book Air Con has been a #1 bestseller in New Zealand and on in the United States, says Herald columnist Chris Barton has gone a bridge too far by defaming him without first reading the book.

“Barton has accused me of being dishonest, and or stupid, on the issue of climate change,” Wishart said today.

“Honest opinion is one thing, but when such allegations are leveled even though Barton has not actually read Air Con and instead relied on a discredited review by a rival pro-anthropogenic global warming author, Barton and the Herald need to face up to their own stupidity,” Wishart said.

“Air Con is packed full of peer-reviewed scientific papers. It has been read and positively reviewed around the world, including by climate scientists. A negative review based on a genuine appraisal of the book is perfectly fine, but for the Herald to publish Barton’s vitriol on the basis of someone else’s flawed hatchet-job of a review is ridiculous. Barton has done journalism a major disservice today, in my opinion, not just in relation to me but in relation to a number of other people he has defamed.”

“Barton has admitted to me that he has not read Air Con, but claimed he was entitled to take a swipe at me on the basis of Gareth Renowden’s review at Hot-Topic. If he wants to rely on Renowden as the ‘true facts’ in support of his opinion in court, good luck to him,” said Wishart, who added that he may widen the lawsuit to include Renowden as well.

If suing for defamation helps in selling more books, cause quite honestly that is the only ratio can see in such an action, than great! We need to hear the other side of the story as well.

As the replies to the media release show: this whole climate change thingy has nothing to do with science and facts anymore and all with beliefs and emotional attachments. So, bad reviews were to be expected where this whole climate change thing is turned into a “you’re either for us or against us” kind of debate. And by the way there is no room for skeptics, doubters or agnostics, they are considered as “against us as well.

People need to read books like this. The presentation – including some of the responses to this media release on – are brought from a flawed perspective.

The debate is not about whether or not climate change is a reality: it has been a reality ever since well before there were humans. The debate should be about whether or not we are dealing with man made or anthropogenic climate change. I prefer not to speak about global warming as it is debated even whether or not the earth IS actually warming or cooling down.

It is important to make this distinction, which is so cleverly hidden in the media and debates, because it is exactly this ANTHROPOGENIC factor that lies at the basis of whether or not we taxes, targets and ETS’s (or even global governance) are a justifiable approach to this matter. It is exactly this anthropogenic factor that lies at the heart of the SCIENTIFIC debate.

It is different for the “common sense” political arena of course because there climate change, as long as we are brainwashed right, will be the greatest cash cow one could imagine. Although not confirmed, this is exactly why people like Nicolson of Federated Farmers, are pissed of with what is happening. What we see is targets, taxes relating to emission trading schemes that could very well cripple businesses without any guarantee that the measures will actually contribute to tackling the issue.


I will probably be categorized as a DENIER but at the same time: I do not deny that climate change is happening. It is and it always has been. What I have doubts about is whether it is all about whether we are actually causing it. That still would not be a problem but it does for me if with this doubt I am forced in schemes that are all about OUR CO2 emissions without any certainty that that is actually the factor we should be focusing on. And even that would not be a problem were it not that, despite an (allegedly more) economically realistic target we will still end up paying for potential non-solutions.

I concur with Nicolson of Federated Farmers: climate change is real and money should be spend on science, research and looking for solutions as to how to cope with what will be coming, whether it is global warming or global cooling (Yes both positions are advocated).

But most of all let’s make sure where there is a debate that it is not screwed by misrepresentations and sensorship by media and politicians.

We should have learned from the anti-smacking debate. It is utter bs to polarize between you are either FOR smacking or AGAINST, that is not what the referendum is about, that is about whether the smack should be something that COULD be part of the parental toolbox (if and when a parent chooses to), or unacceptable and a criminal offense (leaving out other options) and by now whether or not it is working.

It’s no that different with the climate change thingy. You are/will be governed and paying on the basis that climate change is anthropogenic yet that is not at all clear. Are you willing to part over your money to a potentially lost cause? Just because Greenpeace starlets say it makes common sense and because politicians say the same? Look at the arguments for targets and taxes, it has nothing to do with saving the planet and all with everyone else does it therefore so should we. It is all about brand and image. Could it be that both the media and politics are not telling us the full story?

Let’s all try to consider what the complete picture is and make sure that we know where we are putting our hard earned cash and freedom of choice. And don’t get me wrong, I am all for preserving this incredible planet called Earth. What I am not prepared to do though is putting my money in financial/political schemes that will not contribute anything to dealing with the (in my view inevitable) climate change. I’d rather put my money on preparing for the change that at least until it is convincingly proven that climate change is actually man made, anthropogenic, caused by OUR emissions and that therefore my ’emissions tax investment’ is actually contributing to a solution.

Perhaps it is time for another referendum on taxes and targets: because, moral obligation, brand and “green an clean image” quite honestly does not convince me.

Nicolson of Federated Farmers on Climate Change, Government Targets and Taxes: a call for reason and research

Don Nicholson spoke at the 62nd New Zealand Plant Protection Society annual conference the other day and challenged “the almost religious aura” of climate change, or as he called it “climate variation. Bit before that he took some time to lash out at the weakness of New Zealand’s Government of biosecurity. An area that Federated Farmers would like to see get more priority and better funding.

“It is the one area of Government that needs to increase staff and not make cuts. Yet priorities appear to be an economic weak link.

I say this as New Zealand moves to commit ti an emissions reduction target.

If we are truly committed to ‘saving the planet’ then you would imagine we would be investing heavily into science and research…

But no, what is committed to is not solutions but appearance.”

He explains how the ETS is nothing more than a tax scheme and hardly likely to ‘save the planet’ and that emission reduction targets will not save our planet either. Solutions are to be found through science an research whatever Greenpeace, the Green Party and other supporters may think and yet this is exactly the area that is being underinvested in.

As far as the increase in carbon emissions, he points out the correlation between the percentual increase in emissions and the percentual growth of the world population over the period 1990 – 2007. He likens Greenpeace and Green Party campaigning to moral brainwashing without facts or context with no mentioning of solutions and predicated on the here and now. Instead of giving in to the fear we should be looking at ways to roll in and adapt.

Climate change is nothing new and has been there always and has been shaping land form as well as civilization and has been instrumental to human evolution. However thanks to the campaigning many  of us are led to believe that climate change has gone from natural to man made. Climate change is nothing new and was there well before the relatively short existence of mankind, yet now we are made to believe that it is something new and man made. That brainwash is necessary because it hlds that required call for action. With growth rates going as expected for the world population any attempt to cut emission is doomed to fail. Therefore we need SOLUTIONS INSTEAD OF TAXES AND TARGETS, which logically calls for research.

“Federated Farmers backs The Skeptical Environmentalist, Dr Björn Lomborg, in calling for research – not taxes.”

For those who would like to read the whole speech, it can be read here >>>.

I remember well how I sat down and saw the DVD of the Inconvenient Truth. Admittedly I was blown away and convinced. Hats of for Al for doing such a great job. I was at that point already convinced by other advocates  on the importance of the issue and even blogged about it here >>> and here >>>. I read the book HOT TOPIC. And for those that want to hear just that side of the story and how it will affect the future of New Zealand, I suggest you visit the Hot Topic site or many of the other sites dealing with the issue from a man made perspective. At the same time I would not be me if  did not want to get to know more about this important issue.

I also remember how my son, from his own world compared it to one of the “Ice Age movies”, where the animals had to run away from the melting ice. That triggered something: could it maybe be that climate change is something had been there all along and that perhaps we as humans are overestimating our abilities to actually influence it?  Could it be that climate change has nothing to do with men at all? Time for further exploration. It was like buying a red car, all of a sudden there seem to be more red cars on the road than before. As soon as the thought hit my mind I started looking and finding material that is classified as “denial” by man made global warming campaigners.

It strikes me that whilst governments, advised by scientists and policy makers, seem to be ignoring the fact that there seem to be more an more scientists and others lining up that advise that the concept of man made global warming is a a farce or fraud and that we either don’t know the exact causes and therefore how to influence or that man made global warming is a possibility but not supported by current scientific data. More than 700 scientists disagree with the UN on this matter, 13 times the number that authored the UN 2007 clinate summary for policy makers. It is therefore far from “common sense: as suggested in the Greenpeace campaigns, and the science is far from settled. The Wall Street Journal reported recently:

“Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.”

To me that seems to say one thing. Since your life is going to be influenced both by the actual phenomenon AND current government policies, it is time to get yourself informed quickly.

Some sources I found helpful:

  • Ian Wishart: AIR CON, The inconvenient truth about Global Warming, which not just discusses a very compling case but also outlines how this may very well be nothing more than an economic and political game (recall tax cuts and targets bit now complemented with GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, by the UN of course) and lists an enormous amount of resources.
  • Climate Change Fraud at
  • Climate Science Coalition at

This brings me me back to the remarks by Don Nicolson, let’s make sure that we let science do the talking and that we set money aside for that instead of blindly and ignorantly go for taxes and targets. Let’s make sure that the media is concerned with both sides of the story instead of little media horrors like this:

“A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)”


Let’s also make sure that (local) governments, in their documentation present the full story as opposed to chosing sides.
Peronally I was appalled when I read the documentation that ENVIRONMENT CANTERBURY gives out to “Prepare for Climate Change.” Not only did it not cover the complete story, it actually choses a side and tries to make us believe that we can actually do something about climate change by reducing emissions. That is all fine and well if it is made clear that this is based on a standpoint that the (local) government takes in this matter and clearly explains that there is evidence contrary to this position as well. On the other hand how would we dare to challenge old Helen’s “flagship.” By now I would consider presenting both sides part of what is called “political neutrality” since it has none to do with policy and all with providing a public service: educating the people on important matters. I know this club has a Pollution Hotline, I wonder if it also covers mind pollution.

Albert Einstein once said that “the only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
As far as I can see it both ignorance and arrange are bliss.

Climate change is real an is affecting you, but at the same time it is apparently part of what being on this planet is about. At the moment however – thanks to the green movement – governments that would not want to risk economic interests and being part of the group (UN) eg reputation; targets and taxes the most important matter affected is your wallet and for those running specific businesses: their ability to run their business economically. And oh yeah, don’t believe everything you read in the newspaper or in government information: think for yourself.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

More on smacking referendum: PM warned

ACT Party leader Rodney Hide has warned Prime Minister John Key of a public backlash if the government ignores the result of the controversial smacking referendum.

Snubbing the referendum result sends a message that politicians know what’s best for the people and that the government is running a “nanny state”, Hide wrote in a letter delivered to Key’s office on Friday.

In the sidebar it states that: John Key has said the law will not be changed back unless it can be shown that good parents are being prosecuted for light smacking.

If he really said that than I would be disappointed as apparently even the Prime Minister does not know the law. The matters are formulated straight forward in that a correctional smack is a criminal offense. The law does not make this distinction and regardless of how you look at it: well willing parents that want to have even the “light smack” as part of their parental toolbox will need to consider whether or not they are willing to commit a criminal offense.

Besides that, WHO is appointed to determine whether or not a smack is to be considered a light correctional smack that does not justify prosecution or falls within the boundaries of prosecution required? There are no clear guidelines there and personal opinion may well start playing a role in that decision.

In all democratic fairness, the provision as standing in Section 59 should not have been there in the first place. I would have to agree with Mr Hide here.