https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 10:37:24 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
When citing Wikipedia you need to remember it is not authoritative. Anyone can write their opinions into a Wiki article.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) [...] runs the website globalresearch.ca, founded in 2001, which publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[3][4][5] Chossudovsky has promoted conspiracy theories about 9/11.[6][7][10][11]State Department in August 2020 accused the website of being a proxy for a Russian disinformation campaign.[13]
In 2017, the Centre for Research on Globalization was accused by information warfare specialists at NATO’s Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence (STRATCOM) of playing a key role in the spread of pro-Russian propaganda.[12] A report by the U.S.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions. However there are more and more scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
On Wednesday, 8 March 2023 at 10:37:24 UTC+13, HitAnyKey wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
When citing Wikipedia you need to remember it is not authoritative. Anyone can write their opinions into a Wiki article.
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), TonyThe article lacks any facts - just opinion (you know, the thing that you hate - opinin!).
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
Do you?However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
I have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding
that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but
I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more
and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds >contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than
just an opinion, Tony?
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
However there are more and moreI have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but
I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more
and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than
just an opinion, Tony?
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the
degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
I have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding
that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but
I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more
and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than
just an opinion, Tony?
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truthThere certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own. The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to >>>papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and then >this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are
from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views.
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without saying. >Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's policies >etc.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example
andhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the
degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in your statement to make it clear.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to >>>>papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and then >>this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are >>from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views.
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without saying. >>Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's policies >>etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected
by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when
either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where
they have no policies.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example
andhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the
degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
On 8 Mar 2023 07:28:50 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What a nasty thing to write - but hey, we are used to your nastiness.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>>>>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
I have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding
that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but
I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more
and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds
contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than
just an opinion, Tony?
No, once again if you want some hard cites Rich, then you need to something >>more
than your perception.
What is happening is that the alternative view point people are now >>switching into battle mode. Up until now they were hoping that it would blow >>over without doing any damage.
Cyclone Gabrielle must have been very disappointing for them then . .
.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and then >this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are
from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views.
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without saying. >Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's policies >etc.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example
https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the
degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:28:50 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What a nasty thing to write - but hey, we are used to your nastiness.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>>>>>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Try again without line wrap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
I have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding >>>> that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but >>>> I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more
and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds
contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than
just an opinion, Tony?
No, once again if you want some hard cites Rich, then you need to something >>>more
than your perception.
What is happening is that the alternative view point people are now >>>switching into battle mode. Up until now they were hoping that it would blow >>>over without doing any damage.
Cyclone Gabrielle must have been very disappointing for them then . .
.
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:19:23 PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:your belief that climate change or to give it the name you idiots were using till it was discredited, global warming, if you can. It'll be interesting as neither you or Shaw have ever provided such proof in the past!
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to papers that deny his claims about climate change.
Your desperation is obvious from you using two cites from THREE years ago! Yes Cam had some difficulties back then but he's recovered which is why the BFD is far more popular than thestranded or norightturn!https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truthThere certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced views or respect the views other than their own. The bfd is less well known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as oneMore ancient news that only demonstrates what an unmitigated imbecile you are Rich...
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) thatIt's up to you to provide evidence denying that claim Rich. But we all know you deny it because your an unmitigated bloody imbecile who'll support any nonsense from the left and the Green party in particular. now go away and try and support Shaw and
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read those signs . . .
It's only stupid fucking quasi scientists like you Rich who believe any science is ever settled! Hell the Webb telescope has just discovered some evidence from the early universe that puts some so called consesus science in doubt:)Come on Rich. Provide some evidence to back up your stupid opinion or admit your lying ! Failure to do this will just make your lie obvious as will a dumb cite!
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in >your statement to make it clear.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links to >>>>>papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and then >>>this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are >>>from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views.
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without saying. >>>Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's policies >>>etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected
by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when
either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where
they have no policies.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example
andhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during >>>> the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post >>>> the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the >>>> degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession - >>>> it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read >>>> those signs . . .
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:21:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou believe? The only things you believe is the bullshit that the left pushes and it doesn't matter whether or not it's backed up with good science. You love carrying on about "fake news" but are quite happy to push "fake science" and refuse to back it
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Nothing nasty at all - the Cyclone did not affect a lot of New
On 8 Mar 2023 07:28:50 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>>>>>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791Try again without line wrap:
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
I have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding >>>> that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but >>>> I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more >>>> and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds >>>> contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than >>>> just an opinion, Tony?
No, once again if you want some hard cites Rich, then you need to something
more
than your perception.
What is happening is that the alternative view point people are now >>>switching into battle mode. Up until now they were hoping that it would blow
over without doing any damage.
Cyclone Gabrielle must have been very disappointing for them then . . >What a nasty thing to write - but hey, we are used to your nastiness.
.
Zealanders personally, but I believe it did reduce support for views
that denied climate change being influenced by humans. It probably
assisted National to return to their previous policies of
acknoeledging the need for New Zealand to meet obligations under the international Treaty they originally signed New Zealand up to . . .
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:21:10 -0000 (UTC), TonyObviously that is not what you were referring to - you are a nasty little twerp and you prove it every day here.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:28:50 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:What a nasty thing to write - but hey, we are used to your nastiness.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 23:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
HitAnyKey <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:As that article points out, the globalresearch.ca website does not
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 19:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Fair enough, there are plenty of opinions.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate- >>>>>>>emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791Try again without line wrap:
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Chossudovsky#Centre_for_Research_on_Globalization
give reliable or worthwhile opinions.
However there are more and more
scientists questioning the "climate change is man made" idea.
I have not seen evidence of that. Certainly more people are concluding >>>>> that we must make changes to avoid the worst of climate change;
Christopher Luxon for example appears to now agree with that view, but >>>>> I am not claiming that he is a scientists. My perception is tht more >>>>> and more scientists are agreeing with the need to minimise mankinds
contribution to climate change - do you have any evidence rather than >>>>> just an opinion, Tony?
No, once again if you want some hard cites Rich, then you need to something >>>>more
than your perception.
What is happening is that the alternative view point people are now >>>>switching into battle mode. Up until now they were hoping that it would blow
over without doing any damage.
Cyclone Gabrielle must have been very disappointing for them then . .
.
Nothing nasty at all - the Cyclone did not affect a lot of New
Zealanders personally, but I believe it did reduce support for views
that denied climate change being influenced by humans. It probably
assisted National to return to their previous policies of
acknoeledging the need for New Zealand to meet obligations under the >international Treaty they originally signed New Zealand up to . . .
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:20:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense - unless you have evidence. So do provide some.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in >>your statement to make it clear.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it.https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links >>>>>>to
papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site
and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views,
both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced >>>>> views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and then
this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are >>>>from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views. >>>>
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or >>>>average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without saying.
Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's policies >>>>etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected
by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when >>>either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where >>>they have no policies.
Indeed it is true in the other direction, although it is less common
for Labour to repudiate previous policies
, as National did regardingPolitical rhetoric only.
climate change in the earlier part of Christopher Luxon as Leader of
the Party - I suspect it was to gain polling support from climate
change deniers; they appear to have recognised that such a stance is
not sustainable now.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example
andhttps://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one >>>>> of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during >>>>> the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior
National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post >>>>> the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that
the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the >>>>> degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to
use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans - >>>>> we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive >>>>> than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession - >>>>> it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that
they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and >>>>> accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting
science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they >>>>> have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change
their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read >>>>> those signs . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:20:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense - unless you have evidence. So do provide some.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in >>>your statement to make it clear.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links >>>>>>>toPosted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>>https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site >>>>>> and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views, >>>>>> both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced >>>>>> views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and then
this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are >>>>>from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views. >>>>>
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or >>>>>average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without saying.
Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's policies
etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected >>>>by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when >>>>either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>>>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where >>>>they have no policies.
Indeed it is true in the other direction, although it is less common
for Labour to repudiate previous policies
, as National did regardingPolitical rhetoric only.
climate change in the earlier part of Christopher Luxon as Leader of
the Party - I suspect it was to gain polling support from climate
change deniers; they appear to have recognised that such a stance is
not sustainable now.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example >>>>>> >>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one >>>>>> of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during >>>>>> the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior >>>>>> National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post >>>>>> the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that >>>>>> the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the >>>>>> degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to >>>>>> use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans - >>>>>> we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive >>>>>> than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession - >>>>>> it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that >>>>>> they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and >>>>>> accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting >>>>>> science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they >>>>>> have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change >>>>>> their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read >>>>>> those signs . . .
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 01:10:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is impossible. There is no such thing as a climate change denier. Therefore what you wrote are political lies aka rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:20:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense - unless you have evidence. So do provide some.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in >>>>your statement to make it clear.
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote:
Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links >>>>>>>>toPosted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>>>https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site >>>>>>> and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views, >>>>>>> both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced >>>>>>> views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and >>>>>>then
this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are >>>>>>from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views. >>>>>>
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or >>>>>>average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without >>>>>>saying.
Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's >>>>>>policies
etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected >>>>>by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when >>>>>either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>>>>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where >>>>>they have no policies.
Indeed it is true in the other direction, although it is less common
for Labour to repudiate previous policies
, as National did regardingPolitical rhetoric only.
climate change in the earlier part of Christopher Luxon as Leader of
the Party - I suspect it was to gain polling support from climate
change deniers; they appear to have recognised that such a stance is
not sustainable now.
No, it was reality - the VFF people and climate change deniers thought
Luxon was on their side . . .
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one >>>>>>> of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during >>>>>>> the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior >>>>>>> National politicians and others through to various vehicles for
attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post >>>>>>> the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that >>>>>>> the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the >>>>>>> degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be
extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to >>>>>>> use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans - >>>>>>> we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive >>>>>>> than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession - >>>>>>> it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that >>>>>>> they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and >>>>>>> accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting >>>>>>> science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they >>>>>>> have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change >>>>>>> their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read >>>>>>> those signs . . .
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 04:30:43 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are a liar. You posted an article that used that term and then you doubled down and used it again.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 01:10:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is impossible. There is no such thing as a climate change denier. >>Therefore what you wrote are political lies aka rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Nonsense - unless you have evidence. So do provide some.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National >>>>>>in
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>>>>>Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are >>>>>>>>>>links
to
papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site >>>>>>>>> and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views, >>>>>>>>> both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced >>>>>>>>> views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and >>>>>>>>then
this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are
from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views. >>>>>>>>
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or >>>>>>>>average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without >>>>>>>>saying.
Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's >>>>>>>>policies
etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected >>>>>>>by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when >>>>>>>either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>>>>>>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where >>>>>>>they have no policies.
your statement to make it clear.
Indeed it is true in the other direction, although it is less common >>>>>for Labour to repudiate previous policies
, as National did regardingPolitical rhetoric only.
climate change in the earlier part of Christopher Luxon as Leader of >>>>>the Party - I suspect it was to gain polling support from climate >>>>>change deniers; they appear to have recognised that such a stance is >>>>>not sustainable now.
No, it was reality - the VFF people and climate change deniers thought >>>Luxon was on their side . . .
You used the term, although you did confuse it with climate denier -
as far as I am aware you are the only person to use that term.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one >>>>>>>>> of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior >>>>>>>>> National politicians and others through to various vehicles for >>>>>>>>> attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that >>>>>>>>> the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the
degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be >>>>>>>>> extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to >>>>>>>>> use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans - >>>>>>>>> we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive >>>>>>>>> than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that >>>>>>>>> they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and >>>>>>>>> accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting >>>>>>>>> science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they >>>>>>>>> have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change >>>>>>>>> their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 01:10:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is impossible. There is no such thing as a climate change denier. >Therefore what you wrote are political lies aka rhetoric.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:20:15 -0000 (UTC), TonyNonsense - unless you have evidence. So do provide some.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>>>>Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links
to
papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site >>>>>>>> and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views, >>>>>>>> both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced >>>>>>>> views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and >>>>>>>then
this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are >>>>>>>from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views. >>>>>>>
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or >>>>>>>average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without >>>>>>>saying.
Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's >>>>>>>policies
etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected >>>>>>by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when >>>>>>either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>>>>>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where >>>>>>they have no policies.
your statement to make it clear.
Indeed it is true in the other direction, although it is less common >>>>for Labour to repudiate previous policies
, as National did regardingPolitical rhetoric only.
climate change in the earlier part of Christopher Luxon as Leader of >>>>the Party - I suspect it was to gain polling support from climate >>>>change deniers; they appear to have recognised that such a stance is >>>>not sustainable now.
No, it was reality - the VFF people and climate change deniers thought >>Luxon was on their side . . .
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one >>>>>>>> of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during >>>>>>>> the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior >>>>>>>> National politicians and others through to various vehicles for >>>>>>>> attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post >>>>>>>> the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that >>>>>>>> the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the >>>>>>>> degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be >>>>>>>> extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to >>>>>>>> use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans - >>>>>>>> we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive >>>>>>>> than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession - >>>>>>>> it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that >>>>>>>> they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and >>>>>>>> accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting >>>>>>>> science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they >>>>>>>> have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change >>>>>>>> their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read >>>>>>>> those signs . . .
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 04:30:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You used the term, although you did confuse it with climate denier -
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 01:10:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is impossible. There is no such thing as a climate change denier. >Therefore what you wrote are political lies aka rhetoric.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 19:20:15 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Nonsense - unless you have evidence. So do provide some.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Mar 2023 07:21:55 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:The reverse is equally true and equally common. Swap Labour and National in
On 2023-03-08, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 20:14:27 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>>>>>>><bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 8:16:05?AM UTC+13, Tony wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>https://www.globalresearch.ca/1500-scientists-say-there-no-climate-emergency-real-environment-movement-hijacked/5809791
Posted for those who have an open mind, the rest can ignore it. >>>>>>>>>Rich will ignore this because he's an imbecile. However there are links
to
papers that deny his claims about climate change.
https://thebfd.co.nz/2023/03/08/the-new-truth/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-new-truth
There certainly are similarities between the globalresearch.ca site >>>>>>>> and thebfd.co.nz site - both are proone to express extremist views, >>>>>>>> both are controversial, neother makes any attempt to provide balanced
views or respect the views other than their own.
This is how it starts. A group has a different view point from Rich and
then
this is considered to be extremist views. Most people would say they are
from the left or right in their views. But no they are EXTRENIST views.
Extreme, of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or >>>>>>>average:
With regards the second part of the above paragragh, it goes without >>>>>>>saying.
Does the Labour party every give credit, or acknowledge National's >>>>>>>policies
etc.
Yes of course they do - and often you will find Labour policy affected >>>>>>by National's expressed views. But do not expect that to happen when >>>>>>either (a) National have no stated policy, as has been the case with >>>>>>acknoledgement of commitments relating to climate change, or (b) where >>>>>>they have no policies.
your statement to make it clear.
Indeed it is true in the other direction, although it is less common >>>>for Labour to repudiate previous policies
, as National did regardingPolitical rhetoric only.
climate change in the earlier part of Christopher Luxon as Leader of >>>>the Party - I suspect it was to gain polling support from climate >>>>change deniers; they appear to have recognised that such a stance is >>>>not sustainable now.
No, it was reality - the VFF people and climate change deniers thought >>Luxon was on their side . . .
as far as I am aware you are the only person to use that term.
The bfd is less well
known, and has been controversial from the start - see for example >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/business/05-08-2019/liquidators-stamp-brutal-message-on-whaleoil-site-claiming-misappropriation
and
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/ed2gvy/after_todays_drama_its_probably_worth_again/
Cam Slater, whose name is still seen on the website, featured as one
of the main characters of "Dirty Tricks" by which, particularly during
the time of John Key as PM, there were regular links between senior >>>>>>>> National politicians and others through to various vehicles for >>>>>>>> attacks on opponents, with Slater in particular being prepared to post
the most scurrilous material.
The link posted by Tony gives an assessment (without evidence) that >>>>>>>> the human impact on climate is around 25%, which when you consider the
degree to which we have been shown that climate extremes can be >>>>>>>> extremely destructive and expensive, gives at least some impetus to >>>>>>>> use that assertion to make changes to minimise the impact of humans -
we do not really want storms that are significantly more destructive
than Gabrielle! John Bowes probably did not pick up that concession -
it does indicate that it is likely that National now believes that >>>>>>>> they have to move towards those of scientists and the government and
accept that we must make changes. - that movement towards accepting >>>>>>>> science may well be an indication that National are hopeful that they
have a better chance of getting elected to goverment if they change >>>>>>>> their tune; not surprisingly, Tony and John Bowes are not able to read
those signs . . .
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 107:52:37 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,499 |