https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 07:35:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
Yep - but no chance anyone in any northern hemisphere country will
read it. Until then the weather bombs will keep coming no matter what
we in NZ do.
--It also ignores the strong possibility as reported by NIWA, that the Tonga volcano was behind the current cyclonic action. But guess in Rich's book if it comes from norigtturn it must be politically correct :)
Crash McBash
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlFrom the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a different opinion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might otherwise have had.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:04:34 AM UTC+13, Crash wrote:
On Wed, 08 Mar 2023 07:35:27 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>It also ignores the strong possibility as reported by NIWA, that the Tonga volcano was behind the current cyclonic action. But guess in Rich's book
wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html >>Yep - but no chance anyone in any northern hemisphere country will
read it. Until then the weather bombs will keep coming no matter what
we in NZ do.
--
Crash McBash
if it comes from norigtturn it must be politically correct :)
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the English language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html >> From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in >>fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It >>is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might >> otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On 2023-03-07, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html >>
Even if we do wish to make the change, it is a matter of how we are going to do it.
Lets go mining for all the "new" material reguired. Oh dear there goes the Environment.
The subject of going less CO2/green/sustatiable is a very big area with a great number of area which need to be considered.
At present we have a fundamentalist attitude, EV are good, no emissions etc. This does not really allow for the world to work through the issues.
One thing is clear is that the average car, EV, is not going to be as cheap as to-days car. The masses, average Joe Blow are not going to be as wealthy.
There are many people speaking about the issues, on You Tube for example. (Yes I should have been wise enough to keep a note of the URL).
Any study of the cost is going to have some assumptions attached to it. If these are incorrect the result is likewise incorrect. Same for the climate change models.
At this point in time I think that the Lion batteries will no longer be needed for backing up the grid power supply. Here the size does no matter, nor does the weight. For vehicles high power density and light weight is top of the desirable list.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html >>> From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too >>> expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in >>>fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It >>>is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might >>> otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:37:22?AM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
Better for the economy? Tell that to all the businesses that have folded since your inglorious Labour party got into power Rich. Not to forget nrt is a left supporting fake news site if there ever was one...
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 16:49:52 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:37:22?AM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
Better for the economy? Tell that to all the businesses that have folded since your inglorious Labour party got into power Rich. Not to forget nrt is a left supporting fake news site if there ever was one...Try this news site instead then: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/485438/failing-to-take-decisive-climate-action-could-shrink-economy-by-4-point-4-billion-report
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlSomeone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too >>> expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >>
deny it exists is just silly.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of
mankind.
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the EnglishThe article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the
worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the
interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately abusive way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. That is garbage English, Do desist.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html >>>> From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduceSomeone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too >>>> expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in >>>>fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >>>
deny it exists is just silly.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone thatIn that case it is appalling English - just crap.
denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of
mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you read?Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at
least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that NewNo evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for notAbsolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the
worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the
interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It >>>>is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might >>>> otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
No it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately abusiveGordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlSomeone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >>>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >>>
deny it exists is just silly.
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. That is garbage English, Do desist.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in otherIn that case it is appalling English - just crap.
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of >mankind.
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made byYou lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you read?
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that NewNo evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for notAbsolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the >interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes. From above: "From the article "Ever since it became clear that we
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. >Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately abusive
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlSomeone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >>>>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too >>>>> expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in >>>>>fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >>>>
deny it exists is just silly.
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. >That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >>greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >>denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of >>mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you read?
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >>least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >>worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the >>interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 4:52:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlFrom the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >> >>>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >> >>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >> >>>
deny it exists is just silly.
Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately abusive
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. >> That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that
denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of
mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you read?
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the
English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at
least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the
worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the
interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a
different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >> >>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
Before Rich claims you're lying again. Here's the first sentence in his link. Caps are mine: Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS have claimed it is "too expensive".
So once again the lies are all Rich's :)
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:52:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a quote you fool. From the article - I did not use it first. Sheesh, what a moron you are.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes. From above: "From the article "Ever since it became clear that we
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. >>Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately >>abusive
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to >>>deny it exists is just silly.
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlSomeone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >>>>>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too >>>>>> expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and >>>>>>in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >>>>>
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. >>That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >>>greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >>>denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of >>>mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you >>read?
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>>>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by >>>Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >>>least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have >claimed it is "too expensive" "
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that >>>some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >>>worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the >>>interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. >>>>>>It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>>>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it >>>>>>might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You used the term "climate denier" first - the article did not refer
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:52:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a quote you fool. From the article - I did not use it first. Sheesh, >what a moron you are.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes. From above: "From the article "Ever since it became clear that we >>needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have >>claimed it is "too expensive" "
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. >>>Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately >>>abusive
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to >>>>deny it exists is just silly.
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlSomeone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >>>>>>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>>>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and >>>>>>>in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase. >>>>>>
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. >>>That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >>>>greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >>>>denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other >>>>contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of >>>>mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you >>>read?
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>>>>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead. >>>>>Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by >>>>Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >>>>least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of >>>>the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
What is your native language?English. You were just a little confused, Tony.
Or are you drunk already?No - but is that your excuse?
Or are you simply mad?Again no, but your questions do not appear to be an attempt to gain
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting >>>>firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand >>>>agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that >>>>some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >>>>worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the >>>>current and future governments will make the best decisions in the >>>>interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. >>>>>>>It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>>>>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it >>>>>>>might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:16:02?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 04:11:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You used the term "climate denier" first - the article did not refer
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:52:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a quote you fool. From the article - I did not use it first. Sheesh, >> >what a moron you are.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes. From above: "From the article "Ever since it became clear that we
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlFrom the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse
emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and
in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
deny it exists is just silly.
Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately >> >>>abusive
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made.
That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >> >>>>denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of
mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >> >>>>>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >> >>>>least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
read?
needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have
claimed it is "too expensive" "
to that term.
LIAR!!!
What is your native language?English. You were just a little confused, Tony.
The confusion is all yours Rich!
Or are you drunk already?No - but is that your excuse?
Or is it just the drugs you're on?
Or are you simply mad?Again no, but your questions do not appear to be an attempt to gain
information . . .
Just another lie from a serial liar !
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >> >>>>worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the
interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing.
It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >> >>>>>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a
meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it >> >>>>>>>might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 04:11:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony"climate change deniers have claimed it is "too expensive"" is straight out of the article you posted in the first post in this thread.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You used the term "climate denier" first - the article did not refer
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:52:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a quote you fool. From the article - I did not use it first. Sheesh, >>what a moron you are.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes. From above: "From the article "Ever since it became clear that we >>>needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have >>>claimed it is "too expensive" "
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. >>>>Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately >>>>abusive
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to >>>>>deny it exists is just silly.
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce >>>>>>>> greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is >>>>>>>>"too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse >>>>>>>>emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and >>>>>>>>in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made. >>>>That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >>>>>greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >>>>>denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other >>>>>contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of >>>>>mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you >>>>read?
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>>>>>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead. >>>>>>Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by >>>>>Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >>>>>least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of >>>>>the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
to that term.
Not me you fool - you cannot understand English. What is your native language? >>Or are you drunk already?What is your native language?English. You were just a little confused, Tony.
No - but is that your excuse?I have no need for an excuse. Are you still drunk?
Indeed why would I expect you to provide any truthhs?Or are you simply mad?Again no, but your questions do not appear to be an attempt to gain >information . . .
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New >>>>>Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting >>>>>firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not >>>>>meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand >>>>>agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that >>>>>some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >>>>>worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the >>>>>current and future governments will make the best decisions in the >>>>>interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status >>>>>quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is >>>>>>>>changing.
It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>>>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a >>>>>>>meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it >>>>>>>>might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 04:11:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You used the term "climate denier" first - the article did not refer
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:52:21 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt was a quote you fool. From the article - I did not use it first. Sheesh, >what a moron you are.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Yes. From above: "From the article "Ever since it became clear that we >>needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have >>claimed it is "too expensive" "
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:No it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily. >>>Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately >>>abusive
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to >>>>deny it exists is just silly.
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
From the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse
emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and
in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made.
That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing >>>>greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >>>>denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other >>>>contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of >>>>mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >>>>>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead. >>>>>Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by >>>>Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >>>>least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of >>>>the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
read?
to that term.
What is your native language?English. You were just a little confused, Tony.
Or are you drunk already?No - but is that your excuse?
Or are you simply mad?Again no, but your questions do not appear to be an attempt to gain information . . .
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New >>>>Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting >>>>firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not >>>>meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand >>>>agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that >>>>some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >>>>worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the >>>>current and future governments will make the best decisions in the >>>>interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status >>>>quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing.
It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >>>>>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a
meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it >>>>>>>might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:02:44 -0800 (PST), John BowesStop lying Rich! YOU claimed it was Tony who brought climate change deniers into the thread and lying won't save you from being laughed at yet again!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 4:52:23?PM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is a phenomenon, not a phenomena. Your English gets worse daily.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:A climate denier is an idiot - climate is a real natual phenomena; to
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.htmlFrom the article "Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, climate change deniers have claimed it is "too
expensive"
Firstly it has never become clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse
emissions
- that issue is hotly debated by thousands of competent scientists and in
fact
it seems their numbers are increasing.
Secondly what on earth is a climate denier? Can you define that phrase.
Someone who does not agree with the CO2 causes global warming.
deny it exists is just silly.
Otherwise your definition is almost OK but you use it in a deliberately abusive
way to refer to those who argue that climate change is not mainly man=made.
That is garbage English, Do desist.
In that case it is appalling English - just crap.
A climate change denier in the context of an article about reducing
greenhouse gas emissions is usually taken as referring to someone that >> >denies that mankind can make a different to climate, or in other
contexts that changes to climate are being influenced by actions of
mankind.
You lying prick - I did not use it first,. It is in the article, can't you read?
Yes I suspect you are correctr. In that case it is appalling use of the >> >>English
language, totally inaccurate and a deliberate attempt to mislead.
Just more reason to ignore the NRT article.
The article did not refer to climate deniers - that term was made by
Tony, but I do not think he was attempting to mislead, in this case at >> >least, and rather than suggesting that Tony made an appalling use of
the English language, I prefer to think it was a simple mistake.
No evidence has been provided - just rhetoric.
No reason to ignore the article then, which points out that New
Zealand would be materially better off in the view of the consulting
firm Deloitte if we take decisive climate change action.
Absolute garbage - without scientific evidence.
If we fail to take action, we are likely to have to pay for not
meeting targets under the international agreement that New Zealand
agreed to originally under National. National do now again agree that
some climate change is due to actions of mankind, and that some of the >> >worst effects can be avionded - the only question is whether the
current and future governments will make the best decisions in the
interests of all New Zealanders. As Deloitte points out, the Status
quo would be bad for all of us.
I have
never met or heard from anyone who denies that the climate is changing. It
is a
deliberately pejorative phrase designed to insult people who have a >> >>>>different
opinion.
Indeed and it is not a good foot to start of on if one whishes to have a
meaningful discussion.
Those two initial comments in the article destroy any credibility it might
otherwise have had.
Sort of sets the tone.
Before Rich claims you're lying again. Here's the first sentence in his link. Caps are mine: Ever since it became clear that we needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS have claimed it is "too expensive".
So once again the lies are all Rich's :)I am happy for you to have corrected Tony, John Bowes -my point was
that the article did refer to Climate Change Deniers. Thanks for your support.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:23:56 -0800 (PST), John BowesThe post you made is here - just refreshing your memory.
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 5:16:02?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 04:11:06 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:52:21 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:02:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-07, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2023/03/climate-change-too-expensive.html
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 120:41:51 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,210 |
| Messages: | 5,334,426 |