National committed to a bipartisan approach to climate change

In response to Wednesday’s announcement on the Climate Change Response Act and the establishment of an an independent advisory Climate Change Commission the leader of the National Party, Simon Bridges, indicated his support and his party’s commitment to finding “a bipartisan approach to climate change”, but he qualified that with “that delivers the best outcomes for New Zealand”.


National welcomes Climate Change Commission

The National Party welcomes today’s announcement of proposed amendments to the Climate Change Response Act as a positive step towards establishing an independent advisory Climate Change Commission, Leader of the Opposition Simon Bridges says.

“While we have found common ground on the Commission’s form and function, the net-zero target for long lived gases, and the separate treatment of methane, we have serious reservations about the expected rate of reduction for methane.

“National was clear on its position, as I outlined at my speech at Fieldays last year. We have taken a principled approach to these negotiations, including seeking different treatment for separate gases, and I am pleased to see this reflected in the Bill.

“We are not convinced that the proposed 24-47 per cent reduction for methane meets our test in terms of science, economic impact or global response.

“We’re committed to taking short term politics out of climate change policy, by having an enduring Commission which will give science-based advice for successive governments.

“New Zealand has been a global leader in sustainable agricultural production. For this leadership to be enhanced the sector must continue to embrace change, but this target goes beyond credible scientific recommendations.

“We have signalled to the Government in earlier discussions that it is exactly the sort of decision a newly formed Climate Commission should advise Parliament on, rather than politicians cherry picking numbers. Waiting five years to finally assess whether it’s fit for purpose is not acceptable.

“National remains committed to finding a bipartisan approach to climate change that delivers the best outcomes for New Zealand.”

Leave a comment

34 Comments

  1. Duker

     /  12th May 2019

    So they established a Bi partisan commission in their 9 years ? Dont be silly, that would mean including the then opposition parties including greens, who they will barely talk to now let alone had a say back then.

    Reply
  2. Zedd

     /  12th May 2019

    Whats this.. are they finally accepting/admitting that Climate change is real, after at least 9 loooong years of denial ?

    OR are they perhaps, thinking it could be another ‘business/money making opportunity’ ??

    …oops.. the ‘jolly Green cynic’ shows up again… :/

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  12th May 2019

      Especially when they have been making hay out any sort of panel, review, advisory group that the government establishes…..until now…when they want to be in on this ‘group’

      Not sure why PG is doing national party press statements without comment now

      Reply
  3. Dave Mann

     /  12th May 2019

    Simon Bridges and the entire National ‘opposition’ are stupid ineffectual dribbles.

    ‘Climate Change’ is nothing more than a fake psychowank and New Zealand desperately needs a political party which is prepared to stand up and say so.

    Bridges and his band of idiots disgust me, frankly. They’re as bad as the Marxists who are destroying this once great little country.

    Reply
    • Dennis Horne

       /  12th May 2019

      Sonny, you wouldn’t know your rrs from a hole in the ground if you planted a pineapple in it.
      No sane informed person rejects the IPCC consensus.

      Reply
      • Duker

         /  12th May 2019

        “No sane informed person rejects the IPCC consensus.”

        They dont have one – they have scenarios based on computer climate models-
        this what the output from the models looks like , you are welcome to thinks is how consensus is formed
        https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017ee88df70e970d-350wi

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  12th May 2019

          or this one

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  12th May 2019

            The graph shows the output of climate models – clearly consensus. !!

            lets not forget Science has never been about ‘consensus’ in way some think . In fact tearing a hypothesis down is encouraged

            Reply
          • Griff.

             /  12th May 2019

            Consensus is when scientists recognize a hypothesis is now a theory and focus research on questions other than is this theory real .
            We have consensus for such things as Evolution, Helicentricity, Continental drift and climate change because they are supported by overwhelming evidence .
            The only reason anyone talks about the consensus is to counter those who reference the exceedingly small number of cranks on the fringes of science as some sort of authority on climate change and claims there is some sort of dispute about the theory .
            There is virtually no dispute in the published literature something those who get information from cranks on blogs do not realize.
            Or do you think scientists should spend time on proving the earth is not flat ?

            Reply
            • Kimbo

               /  12th May 2019

              Er, as per my friend I posted about a few weeks ago, he reckons “yes”. Thus far the info you provided is not a “black swan” as the cause of the phenomenon (refraction due to temperature causing the otherwise visible horizon to rise or dip) could work with both a flat earth or round globe.

              In which case he likely needs a different way to try and ascertain curvature. Any foolproof suggestions? He appreciated your info, btw.

            • Griff.

               /  12th May 2019

              Go to the top of the Benderwins and do his measurement using a known point on the Hen and chickens. With a simple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob%27s_staff you can measure angle from the horizon or sea level.
              Drive to down to sea level and on the way do a series of the same measurements .
              The greater numbers involved and fact that he is not so dependent on the atmosphere just above water will give him a result for the curvature of the earth within reasonable bounds of error.

            • Griff.

               /  12th May 2019
            • Kimbo

               /  12th May 2019

              Cheers, although that second method assumes that the earth is a globe. Whereas, from a flat earth perspective what you would be observing is the elliptical trajectory of the sun as it moves across the solid-dome sky:

              https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun

        • Griff.

           /  12th May 2019

          Duker
          Go read the report
          The computer model that you are so confused about are only a very small part of the IPCC reports. The overwhelming consilience of evidence from multiple lines of inquiry support the theory not just computer models.

          As to that graph.
          You are being fed lies. This is obvious when you compere it to the uncropped data
          The hind cast has been cropped. They start from a temperatures high in 1983 rather than using the entire period of model runs to distort the result.

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
          One of the things with denial like yours is even if you are shown how you are being deceived you continue to deny because denial is not based on skepticism but on a preconceived idea that you refuse to modify in the face of overwhelming evidence

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  12th May 2019

            Its all computer models ( hint clue is ensemble a crafty way of saying none of the runs within models agree but what the heck) and now the biologist are in on the ‘game’. Extinction is on the way or something.

            That black line in the middle of the grey is ? A scientist who has his model tuned just right – dont be silly , none of them agree in a real world sense let alone some artificial like the ‘planets temperature anomaly ‘. Theologians in the middle ages used to create similar non world situations – heard about the number of angels who could dance on the head of a pin- yep it was the question of the time

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  12th May 2019

              ROFL.
              You dont have any idea about what you are babbling about
              How unusual for you /s.

              According to you this guy had a computer way back in 1896.
              https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

              Climate is the probability density function of weather

              As we can not know exactly what conditions are right now no model can predict the weather more than about five days ahead .
              We can predict the range of possible weather into the future and assign a probability to it hence project the future Climate , Each run of a models output as a possible set of the weather over the time period, The black line represents the most probable set of weather over that period.
              This is a difficult concept to understand here is an explanation for anyone interested,
              https://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/01/initial-value-vs-boundary-value-problems/
              Not for you Duks well above your ability to Grok.

              You have a bad case of DK
              You think you know it all when you know so little you have no idea how much you dont understand.
              And no I dont know every thing.
              I know enough about AGW to know I dont know a lot.

      • Dave Mann

         /  12th May 2019

        Don’t ‘sonny’ me, thank you Dennis. If you seriously think that ‘climate change’ is a real concern or that humans affect it by f*&#ing around with their illusory gases, then you’re welcome to your opinion.

        God help us if that idiot Bridges gets the chance to further ruin our country’s economy with his pathetic virtue signalling.

        Reply
    • Patricia

       /  12th May 2019

      New Conservative is committed to:

      Rejecting the ETS: Rejecting the Emissions Trading Scheme, which imposes significant taxes and costs on everyday New Zealanders whilst not achieving or improving environmental outcomes;

      Rejecting Kyoto and Paris 2015 Agreements: New Conservative believes that our focus should be on the real issues in our own environment, being concerned for, and driven by our own desire for, a clean green New Zealand, knowing that by doing that we are already contributing to a cleaner world. We do not need convoluted international agreements to achieve this.
      https://www.newconservative.org.nz/full-environment-policy

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  12th May 2019

        Excellent. Sanity in a sea of bs.

        Reply
      • Dennis Horne

         /  12th May 2019

        So you think our “corner” of the atmosphere will be okay.

        You haven’t really thought this through, have you, you’ve just read some tripe on a political blog.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  12th May 2019

          ”So you think our “corner” of the atmosphere will be okay.”

          If everyone took care of their corner of the atmosphere..we may have a strategy based on logic. The alternative at present is spreading near non existent resources demanded by unenforceable global agreements and laws..with zero impact on the environment, but it is a great boost for nationalistic ego’s, of which we have one of the biggest.

          Stop this scam now!

          Reply
          • Dennis Horne

             /  12th May 2019

            But the whole idea of international meetings and agreements is to persuade and encourage countries to play their part. Seems entirely logical to me. Perhaps you can suggest another method.

            With climate change, only the US under Trump has rejected the notion America, the country that has historically added more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other country, should accept its share of man’s responsibility for global warming. It’s nothing more than a selfish short term political stunt from a man who places no value on truth or decency. One which is largely ignored by responsible Americans.

            What exactly is the scam? The science or the wish to leave Earth inhabitable for our descendants?

            Reply
            • Duker

               /  12th May 2019

              US CO2 emissions have dropped substantially even with Trump walking away from Paris accord. ( doesnt start till 2020)
              https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonlack/2018/08/23/guess-whos-most-effective-at-combating-global-warming/

            • Griff.

               /  12th May 2019

              More deception
              The USA has switched from coal to natural gas
              What you graph does not include is the leaks of methane from gas wells .
              Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas, with more than 80 times the climate warming impact of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it is released.
              https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-u-s-natural-gas-industry-is-leaking-way-more-methane-than-previously-thought
              As well the USA like must of the developed world has exported its CO2 emissions from manufacturing. Much of the goods it uses are now made in China hence much of China’s rise are actually due to consumers in the west.

              Note I give a link for the source of my information.
              Because were you are getting information from can indicate if it can be trusted or is from questionable sources pushing FUD .

              No

            • Corky

               /  12th May 2019

              What’s the scam? The science. Research water vapour in the atmosphere..and solar radiation. Then compare/quantify with CO2
              Then check out methane.

              I’m sorry, but I gave up arguing this topic ages ago. Take it up with someone else. I just talk in generalities now.

            • Griff.

               /  12th May 2019

              Oh look a gibbering conspiracy crank
              Science is a scam ….

              Temperature vrs solar irradiance.

              Typical rubbish the whacks confuse gullible idiots with .

              H20 is a condensing gas .
              The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on temperature.
              For each 1C in temperature the atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapor . This is a feedback back to warming from CO2 that has been measured.

              As to you gave up.
              You are a expert at pigeon chess.
              IE claiming you have “won” when when you are made to look a total arse
              Suck on you cloud buster some more loony tune it might unfry your brains.

            • Duker

               /  12th May 2019

              from griffs link
              “he EPA currently estimates this methane leak rate to be 1.4 percent” [of natural gas]
              Oh woes , we are doomed…
              Did I say that atmos methane is 1866 parts per Billion

            • Corky

               /  13th May 2019

              Now you know why I only talk in generalities. 😃✔

  4. Dennis Horne

     /  12th May 2019

    The essence of science is evidence, explanation and consensus. Consensus is not part of actually doing science, but it is a natural consequence of doing it right. It’s what goes into – for example – IPCC reports and textbooks. Two from Cambridge University Press. Andrew Dessler: Introduction to Modern Climate Change. John Houghton: Global Warming the complete briefing.

    What have the much-quoted deniers produced? Ivan Giaever learned all he need to know by spending the morning on Google – or so he said. Freeman Dyson thinks warming is good. William Happer thinks climate science is a cult. Richard Lindzen has been debunked more times than a sailor’s squeeze. Judith Curry “doesn’t know yet”. Michael Kelly (Cambridge prof born New Plymouth) made a submission to the NZ government which was nothing more than hand waving: “It won’t be all that bad”. Happily the present government ignored these bullshitters.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  13th May 2019

      ”Judith Curry “doesn’t know yet.”

      Why doesn’t she know.? Is her honesty getting in the way of the ‘politics’ of climate change?

      Reply
  5. Dennis Horne

     /  12th May 2019

    https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
    US. 2017. CO2-equivalence. Methane 10%. Nitrous oxide 6%.
    [I am prepared to discuss the accounting of methane, but not with climate deniers.]

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/
    In the modern atmosphere, methane concentrations have risen by more than 150 percent since 1750. It’s not clear whether this rise will continue, or at what rate, but the IPCC warns that keeping methane emissions in check is necessary in order to keep the planet from warming further.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  12th May 2019

      So National Geographic is your level of Science?
      The rest of your science is stuff done in lab glassware…last time they tried that with CO2 effect using lab glassware they couldn’t get it to work and yet atmosphere CO2 does work like that…in a very complicated way not easily explained

      Reply
      • Dennis Horne

         /  13th May 2019

        My level of science is irrelevant, I’m not the one contradicting the consensus of 70,000 experts and every scientific society on the planet — that endorse the science.

        What I will say is, with considerable certainty, I know what science is, how it works and where to find it, and you don’t.

        The way CO2 works in the atmosphere is thoroughly understood and plenty of experts explain it very clearly. Myles Allen of Oxford U has a good lecture based on a tutorial for an American judge. Richard Alley of Penn State also has a good video explaining why CO2 is “needed” to explain the warming. (I can’t be bothered finding links for idiots.)

        Physics doesn’t give a fcku that you don’t understand it.

        Reply
  1. National committed to a bipartisan approach to climate change — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s