Tsunami of coverage of Climate Change Now

It is not a matter of whether measures will be taken to try to combat climate change, it is how much will be done, and how quickly. Momentum is building in New Zealand, with a burst of media activity this week.

ODT

…the Otago Daily Times has joined an international news media initiative in the run-up to the UN Climate Action Summit.

More than 250 newsrooms representing 32 countries with a combined monthly reach of more than a billion people are co-operating under the banner Covering Climate Now.

During the week leading into the summit, we have agreed to share resources and focus coverage in a way that does justice to the defining story of our time.

Also:

RNZ

Newsroom

The Spinoff

Stuff

Stuff has a section devoted to Climate Change News

NZ Herald

Leave a comment

95 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  20th September 2019

    Translation: The media are now cheerleaders for climate change scammers. The last vestiges of media neutrality and honest debate are well and truly gone. Only talkback is providing a dissenting opinion.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  20th September 2019

      ”How school children are coping with ‘eco-anxiety’ as they worry about climate change.”

      An example of child abuse some children must endure. Of course, my opinion is predicated on that news report being true. Yesterday morning as I watched children buy pies and lollies from a dairy before starting another day of indoctrination, I noticed very little anxiety. Given the report is from Australia, that probably explains things. The reality is, only middle class muppets practice this form of child abuse. Poor parents and rich parents know better. They spare their children from this cult and its insidious brain washing practices.

      Reply
      • There was a discussion in RNZ on what subjects students should study, if they want to be able to cope with climate change.
        Statistics should be high on the list.
        If NZ went “carbon free” it would have .005 degree of difference.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  20th September 2019

          Its not even Carbon Free- as if there can ever be such a thing .
          its NETT Carbon Zero, which is marketing spin.
          We arent reducing our Green gases as agreed by Simon Bridges at Paris , but we pay $900 mill plus, and growing, of taxpayers money to play the NETT reduction game.
          Australia was smart enough at Kyoto to avoid having its farming animals emissions counted, got a free pass on its massive Coal usage , and they have the feel good pretense of they are winning- as they do close Coal power stations

          Reply
      • Gezza

         /  20th September 2019

        The reality is, only middle class muppets practice this form of child abuse. Poor parents and rich parents know better. They spare their children from this cult and its insidious brain washing practices.

        It’s not a cult, Corky. Fine for you to take a stance in opposition to the calls to sign up to international accords that are simply chipping at the edges of the problem of AGW or themselves vulnerable to manipulation by high emitters, but as one of the most tracked & argued about issues of our day calling AGCC, when there is certainly arguable scientific evidence & a now I reckon a fair amount of observable repeating extreme weather event occurrences for it, a cult, is being ignorant, imo.

        Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  20th September 2019

    When did truth ever need so many partisan advocates?

    Reply
    • Grumpy

       /  20th September 2019

      Exactly! Also exactly….none of the predictions of these gang of left wing frauds has ever been realised.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  20th September 2019

        Speaking of climate alarmist frauds, here is one of the nastiest ones receiving a well-deserved thrashing:
        https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  20th September 2019

          I can’t remember her name, but that smug-faced little schoolgirl who seems to be bunking off school to tell the world’s adults how to live must be one of the most annoying people in the world.

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  20th September 2019

          Thanks for that, Alan. Mark Steyn is value for my money in my opinion. I knew Muslims and the Canadian government had him in court, but I didn’t know a climate change nutter was also having a go. Unbelievably, we had Steyn for a columnist in our local rag for about eight months. The liberals were incensed, and he disappeared soon after. Wouldn’t happen nowdays.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  21st September 2019

          Hang on, I’ll have a look. 😐

          Reply
  3. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  20th September 2019

    It is called Propaganda, Pete.

    It is a technique to teach us all how to think the same way.
    The in-laws saw it developed to perfection in Russia and Germany.
    https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/ministry-of-propaganda-and-public-enlightenment

    Reply
    • lurcher1948

       /  20th September 2019

      I see on Kiwiblog the righties want the perfect echo chamber, where everyone scratches each other’s backs, and everything is sweet in rightwing nirvana, by banning the left…BORING…just like climate change…

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  20th September 2019

        If you are alluding to the personal abuse that has been waged against me for the last 5 years on that blog, be assured that nothing will happen.
        Anonymous folk over there have a free hand to discuss my sex life, the state of my cunt, my menopause, my post-menopause, the size of my tits, my mental health, my finances, my friends.
        They have also had a free hand to publish lies about me…
        for what purpose, I wonder?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  21st September 2019

          There are some vile trolls on Quora. If one expresses a view that they don’t like (even one that is not remotely confrontational and not in answer to anything that they have said), volleys of personal abuse and lies follow.

          Reply
  4. MaureenW

     /  20th September 2019

    I wonder why Councils aren’t responding to their self declared Climate Emergencies with shade and rain. shelters, rather than tearing up corridor roads to put in bike lanes?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  20th September 2019

      I can’t imagine.

      Ooh, I know, I know….virtue signalling, Miss ?

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  20th September 2019

        Hamilton Council seems to think that cutting healthy trees down is a good thing to do. I wish that someone could convince them that they have this the wrong way round.

        I have very grave doubts about the new commuter train from Hamilton to Papakura.It will take 1 1/2 hours, and the people will then need to go from Papakura to wherever they work (and from the nearest station to their workplace) as well as having to go to the station, find a park, and go from the station to their home afterwards. At a conservative estimate, this would add at least 30 minutes to the commute, as neither station is very convenient.

        There is also the fact that the times cannot possibly suit everyone.

        It’s hoped that 150 people a day will use the train. Perhaps…but for how long ?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  20th September 2019

          The people who dream these schemes up are too far removed from the situation & are using $OPM.

          They should be perhaps be required to sgn legal undertakings that if their scheme is adopted they will use the service they are proposing & physically shift to a location where they are able, or required, to, for 2 years. Before they submit the proposal?

          Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  21st September 2019

          Sounds ridiculous, Kitty. I had to do a job in Hamilton once and it took longer to drive from Papakura to Devonport than to drive from Hamilton to Papakura in the evenings. No doubt it’s worse now. Unproductive spending is the Left’s speciality.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  21st September 2019

            😄
            Aww. Come on, Al. What would you have to complain about if it wasn’t for the left. Just bureaucrats?

            Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  21st September 2019

            1 1/2 hours to Papakura, 1 hour to Auckland. Let’s say 30 minutes to go to the station and back each day (a rough guess but a reasonable one) I am not allowing for any time lost in delays like waiting between trains as those are imponderables.Nor do I know if there will be a cost for parking all day at the stations.

            6 1/2 hours in total. I don’t know how long it takes to go to other suburbs, of course, or whether the train from Papakura goes directly to them all. Unless someone works really near the station, they will have to allow time for walking or taking a bus as well.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  21st September 2019

              It has cost $92,000,000 to set up.

              Fares will be about $40 a day.

  5. Corky

     /  20th September 2019

    Mikey said he had internal polling results ( I assume from Labour) that show- I forget the word Mikey used – but a devastating negative result. Labour has a number of issues like this sucking the life force out of them. They can only be saved by two things: a budget that basically gives money away..or National stuffing things up. Surely even Simon must understand that National only have to sleep walk to election victory?!😒

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  20th September 2019

      Simon Bridges was Associate Climate Change Minister which signed NZ up to the Paris Accord he attended. (Paula was numero uno with him) So dont be sure SB can avoid responsibility
      Trump rejected Obamas sign on, because he could as it wasnt a Treaty ratified by the senate. But the US GHG are falling anyway

      Reply
    • Duker

       /  20th September 2019

      I checked Hosks recent confabulations….zero zilich.nada about any ‘labour poll’ and climate change.
      Its a total fact free hate fest on Labour…but thats what he does.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  20th September 2019

        Does he really call himself Mikey ? How childish.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  20th September 2019

          I don’t think so. I think that’s a just a syruppy term of avuncualr-tye affection used by Cap’n Corky for him because likes the cut of Hosking’s glib.

          Reply
      • Corky

         /  20th September 2019

        ”Its a total fact free hate fest on Labour…but that’s what he does.”

        Well ,obviously he would be a fuckwit to say he had Labours internal polling when an actual poll once released showed he was wrong. He has so many snivelling dead beat liberal haters who would love to crucify him.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  21st September 2019

          What happened to “fugwit”, which, personally I thought was one of your best useful words for when you didn’t want to swear, but wanted to look & sound like you had, and which I wish I had invented myself?

          Reply
  6. Patzcuaro

     /  20th September 2019

    “The story of King Canute and the tide is an apocryphal anecdote illustrating the piety or humility of King Canute the Great, recorded in the 12th century by Henry of Huntingdon.
    In the story, Canute demonstrates to his flattering courtiers that he has no control over the elements (the incoming tide), explaining that secular power is vain compared to the supreme power of God. The episode is frequently alluded to in contexts where the futility of “trying to stop the tide” of an inexorable event is pointed out, but usually misrepresenting Canute as believing he had supernatural powers, when Huntingdon’s story in fact relates the opposite.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Canute_and_the_tide

    I’m not sure about the power of God but nature is an immovable force.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  21st September 2019

      As I heard it at school, the courtiers either had to admit to being fawning liars and ask Canute to move or let him drown !

      Reply
  7. Pink David

     /  20th September 2019

    “How school children are coping with ‘eco-anxiety’ as they worry about climate change
    Primary school age children say they’re worried about climate change, and want to do their bit to tackle it.”

    This one really does sum it all up. They propagandize children about how they are going to burn and drown without action on climate change, and surprise, surprise, children get worried. When to the people behind this get locked up for child abuse?

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  20th September 2019

      Are you saying that Climate Change and / human accelerated global warming is not happening?

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  20th September 2019

        The climate is changing. Humans may have had some impact on it. The scale of the later is small, and science behind it weak.

        Where there is some science, the policy prescriptions from the activists are almost entirely out of line with the science. i.e. the proposed solutions don’t solve anything and just leave everyone worse off.

        Some of the science is in direct contradiction to the activists claims, i.e. pacific islands are at risk of sea level rise, yet they are getting bigger in reality.

        Where we have good solutions that work, the activist are very strongly against them. We want more renewable, CO2 free energy, but the Greens block all attempts to build hydro dams or nuclear power plants to replace coal. Fracking has been the driver of a massive reduction in CO2 emissions in the US, yet the Greens are relentless in there opposition to this.

        This is compounded with the out and out fraud in the claims made. Hockeystick anyone? Of course, the unending claims of ‘consensus’ is also a red flag. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.

        People using fear to promote a major change to society should always be viewed with deep suspicion.

        Reply
        • Scientific Consensus: Earth’s Climate is Warming

          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  20th September 2019

            “Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.”

            Reply
            • Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

              About the only sort of politics in which you’d get anything like 97% consensus is in a dictatorship.

            • Pink David

               /  20th September 2019

              “About the only sort of politics in which you’d get anything like 97% consensus is in a dictatorship.”

              Yes. Think about that for a second.

            • I’ve thought about it.

              A dictator is 1 person.

              “97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists” is a lot of people (in a field who tend to seek proof of claims).

            • Pink David

               /  20th September 2019

              A dictatorship is never one person.

            • Duker

               /  20th September 2019

              The 97% claim started with Naomi Okreskes getting her students do a study which was then published as a ‘letter ‘ but not peer reviewed.
              And Okreskes.? She’s an historian
              It wasn’t Science

            • Kimbo

               /  21st September 2019

              @ Duker

              It wasn’t Science

              Again, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but estimating the extent of consensus in the scientific community over a matter is not necessarily “scientific” (or exclusively “hard” science, anyway) in the first instance. In fact it is an eminently suitable subject of inquiry and confirmation by an historian, be it the current alleged “consensus” concerning climate change, or the likelihood of alchemy among the 14th Century scientific establishment.

              But yes, as you possibly imply, even if “97% agree”, it doesn’t make it science. But be careful what you wish for, because there are all manner of crackpot 6-day 6,000-years-ago creationists and flat earthers lining up behind you applauding your skepticism which lies at the heart of the modern Enlightenment-informed scientific philosophy and method. But again, I don’t have a dog in this fight…

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  21st September 2019

            That 97% would include most sceptics. It is a meaningless statistic that demonstrates the ignorance of those who cite it.

            Reply
          • Kimbo

             /  21st September 2019

            “Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.”

            Not that I have a dog in this fight, but my friend who believes the earth is flat agrees. And he also has purported evidence to support the hypothesis. And similar claims that children are being brainwashed by “ball earthers”, who don’t deal with the data, but just use social pressure, including ridicule and potential threats to the livelihood of anyone who publicly disagrees…

            Reply
            • Pink David

               /  21st September 2019

              Is your friend proposing to change the entire structure of the global social structure that gives him power as a result of his belief in the earth being flat?

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd September 2019

              He would argue, rightly IMHO, that the discovery of significant new truth, be it scientific or metaphysical will, of its very nature “change the entire structure of the global social structure”. Not that I agree with hm that flat earth is it. Not as science, anyway.

              But as a social construct believed by many that challenges the prevailing logical positivist paradigm and could significantly alter social thought and practice? Could do, indeed it does already to an increasing extent.

              Which reinforces the point that “science” is never some abstract or immutable set of facts. Instead it is practiced by finite and fallible agenda-driven human beings, with the propensity to rationalise data and hypotheses according to their biases. Including climate change. And as someone without a dog in the fight the rhetoric of both sides seems remarkably similar.

            • Pink David

               /  22nd September 2019

              “Which reinforces the point that “science” is never some abstract or immutable set of facts. Instead it is practiced by finite and fallible agenda-driven human beings, with the propensity to rationalise data and hypotheses according to their biases. Including climate change. ”

              Of course. The purpose of science is to moderate the fallible side and create workable models of understand.

              “And as someone without a dog in the fight the rhetoric of both sides seems remarkably similar.”

              Because they are. The difference is really only that the flat earth model isn’t as functional compared to the accepted one. There is no unequivocal TRUTH in science, only degrees of uncertainty. ‘Truth’ is the realm of religion.

            • Kimbo

               /  22nd September 2019

              @ Pink David

              No, I was referring in the first instance to the similarity in rhetoric between the two sides of the climate change debate. So you and Griff sound the same…

              Whether truth is exclusively in the realm of religion – or more precisely metaphysics, especially philosophy including epistemology- is debatable. What should not be debatable is that science in theory and practice can’t exist without metaphysics.

        • Gezza

           /  20th September 2019

          Thanks. There’s quite a bit in your reply there that I csn agree with.

          The climate is changing. Humans may have had some impact on it. The scale of the latter is small, and science behind it weak.

          Ok. So what’s your scientific theory for the major alternative cause or impactor(s) & how good or disputed is that evidence?

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  20th September 2019

            “So what’s your scientific theory for the major alternative cause”

            We are coming out of the little ice age. The climate cycles are not disputed, or controversial. Except perhaps when Mann deleted the medieval warm period in his hockey stick graph.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  20th September 2019

              What are the arguments against that being the major cause of the current temperature rises? Have you seen any?

              And are you saying these temp rises don’t correlate well with rising carbon emissions since the Industrial Revokution?

            • Gezza

               /  20th September 2019

              Sht! * Revolution

            • Pink David

               /  20th September 2019

              “And are you saying these temp rises don’t correlate well with rising carbon emissions since the Industrial Revokution?”

              Not as well as most claims, nor does CO2 correlate to temperature in the past. CO2 just can’t be the driver of climate that the claims require it to be, or we would see a far stronger correlation in the past.

              There might be something in it, but the science is weak and limited in a very complex system.

              There is a useful precaution in that level of science, we should seek to limit/reduce CO2 emissions simply on the grounds we don’t really know what it will do. We have had the technology to achieve this to a very large degree for decades. Those technologies are the ones the most vocal supporters of climate change theory who say it is the most important issue for humanity, are the most vocally against.

              Can someone explain why that is?

            • Pink David

               /  20th September 2019

              Just to add, there is much better science on the correlation between CO2 increasing and increased greening of the earth. Photosynthesis of plants has increased 30% since the industrial revolution.

            • Gezza

               /  20th September 2019

              That last comment – that’s true, I believe, but I’m personally also concerned about the modern shortsighted econo-anthropological impacts on wlldlife, not just possibly AGW, but wanton destruction/deforestation cum intensive monocultural farming & pollution, among other things. I don’t want to see us losing any more of our fellow benign inhabitants of this amazing planet.

            • Pink David

               /  20th September 2019

              ” I don’t want to see us losing any more of our fellow benign inhabitants of this amazing planet.”

              I believe most people are more concerned about this than climate change. Conservation is very worthwhile.

            • Duker

               /  20th September 2019

              Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.
              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

              This means temperature rise came first, according to their methods, not increased CO2

            • Gezza

               /  20th September 2019

              @David
              I believe most people are more concerned about this than climate change. Conservation is very worthwhile.

              Yes. The two get conflated a lot by anti-AGW activists, when the causes are not necessarily always related. It frustrates me sometimes as some of those who dismiss AGW also thus ignore environmental destruction & species threats by association. Trump I think is one of those.

            • Gezza

               /  20th September 2019

              There is a useful precaution in that level of science, we should seek to limit/reduce CO2 emissions simply on the grounds we don’t really know what it will do. We have had the technology to achieve this to a very large degree for decades. Those technologies are the ones the most vocal supporters of climate change theory who say it is the most important issue for humanity, are the most vocally against.

              Can someone explain why that is?

              Most likely because they tend to be a collection of younger idealists, protesting against a whole host of issues which they actually have little understanding of, but feel obligated to support because they are part of The Group. Like being on a political party – which of course The Greens already are.

            • Griff.

               /  21st September 2019

              Climate Myth…
              CO2 lags temperature
              “An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature.” (Joe Barton)

              Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

              This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns
              https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

              What gets me is you can point out this hundreds of times but they still repeat the same old pratts .
              #Willful ignorance.

            • Pink David

               /  21st September 2019

              Hey Griff, I’m told it only needs you to copy/paste 34,098 more times to solve the climate change problem.

            • Griff.

               /  22nd September 2019

              Hello Dave
              Is it not sad when reality gets in the way of your delusions.
              I know you don’t like information that makes you look stupid.
              #willful ignorance.
              You will continue to both repeat your illogical ill informed nonsense and believe the sources that feed you such bullshite.
              Baa baa little sheepie.
              Because those who shape your world view rely on you willingly being mislead by their propaganda.

            • Pink David

               /  22nd September 2019

              “Because those who shape your world view rely on you willingly being mislead by their propaganda.”

              That’s a bit harsh. I thought I was the one doing the misleading! This lead/lag thing is so confusing. Sometimes they say it’s lead, sometimes it’s lag, and most of the time

              As you are the one who knows, perhaps you could answer my question above; why are those most strongly in favour of the world responding to the rising CO2 level, also the ones most strongly against all the functional solutions that we could deploy at low costs over the last 30 years?

              We could have largely decarbonised the worlds energy production by now with good application of nuclear, hydro and gas generation at a reasonably low cost.

              Why didn’t we given the climate is the number one challenge to humanity?

  8. Reply
    • Duker

       /  20th September 2019

      That coal keeps the lights on in Sydney Nick….you should try doing without when NSW depends on coal for over 70% of power production.
      Do you really want to become North Korea with better beaches?

      Reply
  9. Reply
    • Corky

       /  20th September 2019

      Stereotypical middleclass faces. I hate beating on them, but if they’d only sit down and think.
      Maybe they need this climate religion to fill a void once occupied by God?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  20th September 2019

        There’s at least one US senator & probably near a million or so Trump voters whose stabce in opposition to AGW is simply that God woouln’t allow it.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  20th September 2019

          sht!

          stance, wouldn’t.

          Soz. Been laid out on a sofa, vomiting, all day in a blacked-out lounge since 3am by the worst fkn migraine attack I’ve suffered in decades. Only had one sumitriptan left for an attack that needed to be smacked with two immediately on onset but it had taken hold while I was asleep. Bastards of things to suffer from if they get away from you! Only just been able to eat & keep down some fresh floured lemon fish lightly fried in canola with salt & lemon from my abundant lemon tree.

          Making a lot of typos cos head still fuzzy & light still hurts me eyes.

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  21st September 2019

            Sorry to hear that. Having witnessed someone with a bad migraine, I’m surprised you can still string two sentences together and give Trumpy a serve.

            Migraines are a gut problem, as science is just discovering. It’s old news to
            some alternative medicine aficionado’s like me.

            Try to source some genuine Kefir grains and use non homogenised milk. Raw milk is best, but I doubt that will be an option.

            http://korukai.co.nz/index.php?id_product=133&controller=product

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  21st September 2019

              I’ll check that out later. If the migraine takes hold like this one did you csn’t keep anything down. Apparently the stomach shuts down & rejects anything you try to ingest. So that looks interesting.

              The 100 mg of sumatriptan eventually worked: it must contain an anti-emetic. But it’s heavy duty chemicals by the look of it. There’s a daily limit – no more than 300 mg. If it doesn’t work you’re not supposed to repeat the dose.

            • Corky

               /  21st September 2019

              It’s about gut bacteria. Kefir repopulates the gut with myriad strains of bacteria. Even the best yogurts don’t come close to the beneficial effects of Kefir. That means toxins are processed better, and the immune system goes into overdrive. You can also use the grains to make apple cider from apple juice. I made a batch (6%) alcohol. I liked it so much I haven’t made anymore. I have an addictive personality. I don’t want to end my days pissed at the keyboard on cider.

            • Gezza

               /  21st September 2019

              Good thinking. One Lurchy’s enuf. Two would be spoiling us.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  21st September 2019

              Migraines don’t only have one cause. They can be hormonal. caused by stress, caused by low blood sugar or by certain foods.The idea that they are just a gut thing cannot possibly be taken seriously. Women who have them every month show that this isn’t the case. Some people find that cheese and/or chocolate cause them.

              Cider can only be made from apples, there is no other form of cider.

  10. Griff.

     /  21st September 2019

    Oh dear we still have cranks, conspiracy theory’s and willful ignorance.
    Who cares.
    You are being pushed to the fringe and will only become more so as time goes on.
    As I have said so many times
    The unalterably laws of physics always wins.
    Pity about humanity .

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  21st September 2019

      ln the universal scheme of things I think we overestimate ourselves, we humans. Great apes, still too often driven by animal instincts, thinking we have transceded them. If we become too much of a problem for the planet, it will eliminate us – maybe by simply allowing us to eliminate ourselves?

      Gaia doesn’t care. She’s an evolutionary life-producing machine. She could probably do better next time, if we do disappear thru some human-induced, or cosmic-induced calamity.

      Reply
    • Gerrit

       /  22nd September 2019

      The unalterable laws of human need always collide with the laws of physics.

      So the law of physics say we must stop burning coal.

      However human needs for employment and electricity means we will keep burning coal.

      Newcastle NSW exports 160 million tons of coal per year. 50% goes to Japan for electricity generation.

      Now to stop that trade would mean unemployment for the entire workforce of the Hunter Valley Coal Chain. A chain of some 35 mines, umpteen trains and a whole port operation that fills 5 ships everyday.

      Stopping burning coal from Newcastle would mean that 50% of electricity in Japan (and 12% in China) would need to shut down.

      Basically the human race is on a treadmill it simply not able to get off without a massive culling of human animals.

      So either way, if the 10 years to the apocalypse is true, enjoy the life you have left.

      For there is no government and no imperial (UN) force that will turn off the lights or place huge multitudes of people on the scrap heap.

      Somehow you have to feed the multitudes and the only answer is to burn coal.

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  22nd September 2019

        “So the law of physics say we must stop burning coal.
        However human needs for employment and electricity means we will keep burning coal.”

        No it doesn’t. They could use nuclear.

        “Newcastle NSW exports 160 million tons of coal per year. 50% goes to Japan for electricity generation.”

        Because Japan is shutting down it’s nuclear plants.

        “Basically the human race is on a treadmill it simply not able to get off without a massive culling of human animals.”

        I do wonder why so many climate change activists are so keen on genocide. i really do think CO2 is just the justification to get busy murdering at times.

        “So either way, if the 10 years to the apocalypse is true, enjoy the life you have left.”

        One of the key ways to scam someone is to instill a sense of extreme urgency and panic. It’s be decades of ‘only ten years left’ on climate change.

        The Guardian ran a series titled ‘100 months to save the World!’ It started in 2008, and quietly disappeared in 2016.

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/series/100-months-to-save-the-world

        Reply
        • Gerrit

           /  22nd September 2019

          Pink David,

          One slight argument in your “Japan can go nuclear”. Build time and cost.

          Build time is 5 to 8 years meaning a continued reliance on coal till new nuclear power plants (you will need a few) are operational.

          China has 25 new nuclear power stations in construction but even with their vast infrastructure build capability and efficiency in manning (to not fall into the Chernobyl trap of ill trained workers causing meltdowns), even they warn;

          “China has 25 reactors under construction but, according to a government research unit, China must not build “too many nuclear power reactors too quickly”, in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers. According to the World Nuclear Association, the global trend is for new nuclear power stations coming online to be balanced by the number of old plants being retired.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants

          So whilst Japan can get nuclear reactors online in 5 to 8 years they would not prevent the claimed catastrophic end of the earth occupation by humans event promised by the climate alarmists in 10 years time.

          Better use of the money to build nuclear power plants, would be to give that money to the plebs for a 10 year long party to end all parties so we can all go out with a bang, spaced out and uncaring.

          Mind you, us baby boomers were all prepared for the Age of Aquarius but it never came. Wanted to party hard for the upcoming love fest but instead we worked harder to pay the mortgage. The new age doomsday promoting climate alarmist will be as crest fallen as us baby boomers were when the Age of Aquaries and free love did not pan out.

          Ah well, back to the grind stone.

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  22nd September 2019

            “Build time is 5 to 8 years meaning a continued reliance on coal till new nuclear power plants (you will need a few) are operational.”

            We have had three decades. If not more.

            “So whilst Japan can get nuclear reactors online in 5 to 8 years they would not prevent the claimed catastrophic end of the earth occupation by humans event promised by the climate alarmists in 10 years time.”

            If the world ends in 10 years, not much point in the ‘carbon zero by 2050’ then is there?

            Reply
  11. Duker

     /  21st September 2019

    This lookback at decades old ‘predictions of catastrophe are too good to ignore
    https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

    Heres “just” the Guardian ones
    1974 Ice Age in 10 years ” Space Satellites show Ice Age Coming fast
    2002: Famine in 10 years
    2004: Britain to have Siberian climate by 2020
    2013 Ice Free Arctic in 2 yrs heralds methane catastrophe -Scientist
    2014 Only 500 days before Climate Chaos-

    And its equally absurd UK The Independent
    2000 Children arent going to know what Snow is
    2006 Prince Charles – Just 96 months to save the World
    and the piece de resistance
    2009 Al Gore- Polar Ice Cap may disappear by Summer 2014

    The Internet doesnt forget, do you want YourNZ to have easily ridiculed stories in 10 yrs PG?

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  21st September 2019

      Older readers will remember the big scares of the 1960s
      1967 – Already Too Late . Dire Famine Forecast by ’75.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  21st September 2019

        Jury’s still out on this one AFAIC. But what does it matter if they’re wrong & being ridiculed in 10 years time? Still a very important topic of the time & the record will show how much it engaged & polarised the world.

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  21st September 2019

        I remember someone telling in the 60’s that ‘da commies were going to blow da world up unless da Yanks blew dem up first.’ Damn, those were much simpler times. Everything was black and white..and transgenderism wasn’t an issue. Those that way inclined went to Wellington and were never heard from again.I wish climate change cultists would do the same.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  21st September 2019

          transgenderism wasn’t an issue. Those that way inclined went to Wellington and were never heard from again.

          Bollocks. They went to Carmen’s coffee shop. Carmen Rupe was famous mate. Everybody went there. Even the local & parliamentary pollies liked to have their photos taken with Carmen & “the girls”.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  21st September 2019

            My mother’s friend, now my friend, went to primary school with little Trevor Rupe. She says that he was a dear little boy.

            Her (Carmen’s) coffee shop was called The Purple Onion. It was years before I understood that one.

            One year someone found Carmen and won first prize in the Vic Treasure Hunt.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  21st September 2019

              That’s a perfectly harmless comment of interest from Kitty Catkin, given the sub-thread’s subject matter. What a pathetic sad sack you are, PDT. 👎🏼

  12. Kitty Catkin

     /  21st September 2019

    I have real reservations about people being able to do much about climate change. Little Miss Smugface’s not going to school on Fridays won’t do a damned thing about climate change or global warming, and nor will the marches today.

    I bet that the little brat didn’t walk or ride a bike to New York.

    I am all for reducing waste, recycling, reusing, reducing pollution and cutting down excessive consumerism, but doubt if they will stop the climate’s cyclical changes although they are good things in themselves.

    Reply

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