Iconic Thunberg target of awful attacks but ‘allies’ are her target

Greta Thunberg has become an international icon of youth concerns about climate change.

She has attracted over the top and awful attacks from some who seem threatened by having to change the world to stop the world from suffering potentially irreversible damage due to predicted climate change.

But she is also a threat to politicians who think she is on their side.

Stephen Buranyi (Guardian): Greta Thunberg’s enemies are right to be scared. Her new political allies should be too

Greta Thunberg has made a lot of enemies. They are easy to recognise because their rage is so great they cannot help making themselves look ridiculous. Thunberg’s arrival in the US earlier this month set off rightwing pundits and then the president himself. The conservative provocateur Dinesh D’Souza compared her look to a Nazi propaganda poster; a Fox News guest called her a “mentally ill Swedish child” being exploited by her parents; and Trump mocked her on Twitter as a “happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future”, after a speech in which she urgently laid out the dismal prospects for her generation’s future.

These are the latest attacks, but they aren’t the darkest, or most unhinged. Arron Banks intimating that she might drown crossing the Atlantic in August might be the single worst example – or you can stare directly into the abyss by witnessing the depraved abuse Thunberg receives across the social media networks.

Social media is notorious for attacks on messengers in trying to discredit messages.

Thunberg’s age and gender undoubtedly annoy her critics, but they’re melting down because she explicitly makes the connections that scientists are generally unwilling to make. Namely that their scientific predictions for the climate, and the current economic and political order, may not be compatible.

Continuous growth – economic, population, consumption – is untenable. If the economy keeps growing then crashes are inevitable. if the population keeps growing then the human race is at increasing risk of a crash in food production, or even an inability to keep increasing food production.

Catastrophe may not happen in our lifetimes, but the longer we let things continue as without doing much about it, the greater the risk for us, or for future generations.

Last year’s IPCC report warned there were just 12 years left to avoid irreversible damage to the climate.

That has been misrepresented as 12 years until the world will end. The warning was overstated, and that has been amplified by critics.

Thunberg refers to this often, updating the count as if it were a timebomb strapped to the chest of her entire generation: the closer it gets to zero, the more radical action seems justified.

It’s a moral argument, fundamentally, that assumes the climate crisis will be worse than any disruption caused by addressing it.

I’ve seen Greens (national and local body politicians) here push this argument here. Not just the disruption of trying to address it, in particular the cost. But they don’t seem to have done costings on trying to mitigate the effects of climate change – it seems more of a pie in the sky faith based argument, absent any practical suggestions.

We have already seen something similar in action on a smaller scale in Dunedin, the almost evangelical and expensive  introduction of cycle lanes on busy highways and streets that have increased cycle use, but from hardly any to a bit more but still not a lot.

Carbon moves the deadly clock forward, and anything that facilitates that must be bad.

But we really can’t suddenly cease use of carbon, suddenly cease use of fossil fuels, suddenly cease use of cars, trucks, planes. Trying to achieve anything like that would threaten civilisation more than effects of climate change. At least more suddenly.

She judges long-touted paradigms of “green growth” and market-based solutions as failures by this simple measure. “If solutions within this system are so impossible to find then maybe we should change the system itself,” she said at the UN climate conference in Katowice last year.

Change the system to what? Suddenly or with some sort of transition?

I think that rapid change to world systems would pose bigger risks, and more rapid risks, than business as usual. At best rapid change would cause major disruptions, and the end result could easily be worse than the established systems.

I think that radical change is being promoted because politicians and leaders have failed to act enough incrementally (or failed to act at all, or acted more irresponsibly).

The right doesn’t just mindlessly explode at every climate activist. Thunberg has none of the unthreatening geniality of Mr Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, or the various Hollywood celebrities who have taken on climate as a cause. She styles herself as a climate populist: she invokes a clear moral vision, a corrupt, unresponsive system – and has a knack for neatly separating an “us” and a “them”. When she spoke of her supporters “being mocked and lied about by elected officials, members of parliament, business leaders, journalists”, she was drawing now-familiar political lines against the elite.

This framing releases ordinary people from complicity in the climate crisis, just as other populisms release them from blame for their economic or social fate, and directs that feeling towards a political enemy. “Some people say that the climate crisis is something that we all have created. But that is just another convenient lie,” Thunberg told attendees at Davos earlier this year. “Someone is to blame.” A 2017 report showing that just 100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 has become a popular reference among protesters. The alchemy of populism is that powerlessness fuels anger rather than despair.

And anger at inaction is growing, around the world – and here in New Zealand. James Shaw is promising carbon zero legislation but that seems to have been delayed (he has been Minister of Climate Change for nearly two years).

Thunberg’s critics previously understood exactly what to expect from the climate issue. Even if they didn’t follow it closely, they could intuit, as most people could, that the mainstream channels of communication were gunked up with denial and obstruction, and international negotiations were governed by a politics that was accommodating to the status quo. Despite the lofty promises, no one believed anything would change.

It isn’t just that Thunberg has made climate politics popular, she has – for the first time since the early days of the climate justice movement – made them populist on a large scale, something these people rightly see as a threat to the more liberal order that suited them fine. A good reactionary recognises the potential vehicle for real change, and they hate it.

Yes, some people seem to hate change. Or fear it.

In seeing this, Thunberg’s red-faced peanut gallery hecklers are actually more perceptive than many of the liberal and centrist politicians who have taken to gushing over her without hearing her message. Justin Trudeau, for example, praised her last week while unveiling new climate policies that fell short of Thunberg’s goals.

After meeting with him, she claimed Trudeau was “not doing enough” on climate – and she has previously called his government’s doublespeak on climate policy “shameful”.

The New Zealand Government, and the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, are under similar pressure here. Early on her leadership role Ardern grandly stated that climate change was this generation’s nuclear free issue, but those wanting significant action want to put a bomb under her government.

It’s not clear where Thunberg’s politics lie, or where they will go in the future, but her rhetoric mirrors the left of the environmental movement, a wing of which has long cautioned that reductions in consumption and growth will be required to deal with the climate crisis. “You only speak of a green eternal economic growth because you are too scared of being unpopular,” she told delegates at the UN climate conference in Katowice last year, criticising the “same bad ideas that got us into this mess”, and telling them to pull “the emergency brake”.

Earlier this month in New York she continued the critique in front of world leaders. “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can think of is money and fairytales of eternal growth: how dare you,” she said, visibly angry.

I think that talk of “the beginning of a mass extinction” is not helping Thunberg’s case. Presumably that is what she believes, but it is easy to ridicule and dismiss as over the top scare mongering. But those who may do that are not her target market.

This is worth pointing out – not to claim Thunberg for any particular political faction, but to note that her main rhetorical targets are not denialist wingnuts, but the same mainstream politicians who invite her to speak and praise her activism.

Politicians like Trudeau and Ardern.

They beam at her as if she were their own child, and, perhaps in a similar way, they don’t appear to hear her when she says it’s their fault her life is ruined. It’s the reaction of a group who have long considered themselves on the correct side of the climate divide, and thus, of history. As if a grand “we tried” would satisfy the generations after them.

But the problem is they haven’t even tried very much, they have just talked about it.

Thunberg’s great contribution is to convince the wider public of the bankruptcy of that outlook, and to indict years of missed targets as the failures that they are. Politicians don’t appear to take this shift, or her, very seriously. They’re happy to bask in her light, perhaps convinced this new insistence on immediacy will pass, as all the others did.

In her latest speech, Thunberg promised change was coming, “whether you like it or not”, although it’s not clear she has a plan for how. For the moment she and the movement she has invigorated are in a strange place, commanding immense popular support for a radical cause, and simultaneously praised by the very people they identify as the problem.

A problem, or problems, with no obvious solution.

They want radical change. But to what? And how?

Democracy doesn’t seem to be the answer, going by poor voting rates so far in the local body elections. Early returns are low, in Dunedin just three quarters of the corresponding time last election, and thus half of the rate in 2010.

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

69 Comments

  1. Reply
    • Corky

       /  2nd October 2019

      She may be right…but the alternative she represents is worse.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  2nd October 2019

      “”The political status quo is unfit to confront the climate crisis””

      Which came first, the ‘climate crisis’ or the desire to impose a totalitarian government on the whole world?

      Reply
  2. NOEL

     /  2nd October 2019

    Had a chuckle over her fears been maipulated. Geez there was the nuclear clock, acid rain, every fourth house would have a cross indicating an aids patient to make a few for previous generations.

    Reply
  3. Gezza

     /  2nd October 2019

    Thunberg’s youth makes that ridiculously impassioned angry speech to adults a waste of time. Petulant teens shouting “You don’t care! You’re ruining mu life ! at their parents is something all parents learn to ignore because at that age they know everything & they know nothing. She needs to learn the art of communicating with adults. What’s her plan? Schoolchildren everywhere to carry on bunking off school until their vague demands are met? Where will that end? A flash in the pan.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  2nd October 2019

      It makes great clickbait…thats why the news media is all in

      Reply
      • I have no sympathy for her. She is getting what she deserved.

        She screams at and abuses people, offers no real solutions to the situations she blames others for making, then wonders why people react to this with criticism.

        She says one thing and does another, then her supporters don’t like it when this is pointed out.

        If she wants to take adults on, she must be prepared for the consequences. She can’t be a child when it suits her and not when it doesn’t.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  2nd October 2019

          To me, her age and gender are irrelevant. She sets herself up as someone who has the right to hector and abuse adults, so seems to think herself to be equal to them. If this is so, she can’t be surprised when the reaction is the same as it would to be an adult doing the same thing. She can’t have it both ways.

          It’s a gift to the people who are promoting her and encouraging her hysterical ranting, of course, when the inevitable happens and people take exception to being harangued by a bratty child.

          Reply
  4. Corky

     /  2nd October 2019

    I’m one of these Righties raging against this young muppet. Why? Not because she’s ignorant. We were all 16 once, and just as ignorant in certain regards. My problem is she was given airtime at the UN, while to the best of my knowledge the 500 scientists who called bs on this scam received no recognition. That’s not science. That’s no way to plan for our future.

    ”In her latest speech, Thunberg promised change was coming, “whether you like it or not”, although it’s not clear she has a plan for how.”

    She’s right about that. The tipping point is coming when the facade of bs will not be able to
    be maintained. Even the average Joe will finally be able to see that.

    If I had my way a Truth Commission would be convened and all people in power who blindly followed this cult would confess their ignorance in public before being jailed. How dare these people use NZ taxpayers money to support the UN.

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  2nd October 2019

      They have found the new magic code words that are more powerful than ‘the last time magic words were uttered’
      “Science Says”

      Reply
  5. If teenage girls can accomplish so much and live so powerfully even as they are mocked, condescended, demeaned and shamed, imagine what they could do if we just shut up and got the hell out of their way.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/01/greta-thunberg-teenage-girls-donald-trump-opinion

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  2nd October 2019

      You jest..surely. Or are you just taking the piss? If not..speak for yourself. I refuse to get out of the way of a child spouting nonsense, who is a puppet for others agendas. You can’t beat putting kids on the front line. Hell, even the Palestinians do it. It puts the enemy in two minds.
      I’m rejoicing, that even though I’m the enemy, I still have some semblance of a moral compass.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  2nd October 2019

      ” what they could do if we just shut up and got the hell out of their way.”

      Nothing. Teenage girls don’t achieve anything without others. They don’t design new methods of generating power. They don’t construct irrigation systems. They don’t create solutions to any problems.

      All they have is the power to screech and annoy. That is what Greta has been employed to do. Then people like you can post about how powerful they must be because people find them annoying.

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  2nd October 2019

        Damn straight, Dave. I think it’s those old white fellas who do much of our creating. They have companies that produce, let’s think..oh, medical equipment for ICU wards. That equipment gives patients a chance at life under the most trying medical conditions. In fact a ICU intern told me they can keep anyone alive for as long as they like. The problem they now
        face is deciding when to switch life support off.

        Reply
  6. Corky

     /  2nd October 2019

    Thunberg wasn’t the first. Severn Cullis-Suzuki at Rio Summit, 1992 was. Severn is still here and the planet is still OK. That said, I have nothing against her. She put her case across well. No historic. A huge difference to Thunberg. Is Thunberg a marker of the degeneration of youth and society as a whole? Yes!

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  2nd October 2019

      In poor Greta the Left have found one of Stalin’s useful idiots. I hope she survives their misuse of her.

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  2nd October 2019

        “Stalin’s useful idiots.”

        More like Mao’s Red Guard.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  2nd October 2019

          Yep, that too. There’s a Lefty pattern there.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  2nd October 2019

            And of course Hitler Youth,
            ANC Youth League and numerous African child soldiers. Not that the West was any better historically. The naivety of youth has always been exploited. Now the Left want them to vote.

            Reply
            • NOEL

               /  2nd October 2019

              That call for youth to vote is a strange cone. There has been a call from academics for the age at the Youth Court to be raised to 21 claiming before that age they don’t have the cognitive reasoning of an adult.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  2nd October 2019

              Yet there are those who think that 16 year olds are old enough to vote. Would they have to be working ? If not, they’d have representation without taxation.

    • Kitty Catkin

       /  2nd October 2019

      No historic ? Do you mean hysterics or histrionics ?

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  2nd October 2019

        I assume that even the PDTs know what hysterics are, but they probably don’t know what histrionic means. It means an overdone, overacted performance, and histrionics are dramatic tantrums.

        Reply
  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  2nd October 2019

    Oh, for some common sense. For example that recycling atmospheric carbon as farming and forestry do is a different level of issue than burning fossil fuel.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  2nd October 2019

      How?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  2nd October 2019

        Fossil fuel burning adds new carbon to the atmospheric carbon cycle. The others don’t.

        Reply
        • Duker

           /  2nd October 2019

          Human caused carbon release is in the margin of error when it comes to the Earths own carbon cycle . I think they measure it all in Gigatons.
          You see it often in other cliams too such as ocean acidification. The ocean surface is naturally a range 8.33 to 8.08 pH units on the 0- 14 scale. It has to drop to 7.0 first (neutral) to even consider its acidic. Plus its a LOG scale so 1 unit is 10x
          And how much change have they measured ? 0.02 . They sort of admit is barely noticeable on the natural variability, and thats because they have invented a new number – Global ocean pH.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  2nd October 2019

          Don’t they absorb some of it, if not why not?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  2nd October 2019

            What are you asking?

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  2nd October 2019

              For example that recycling atmospheric carbon as farming and forestry do is a different level of issue than burning fossil fuel.

              What exactly you mean by that?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd October 2019

              The carbon that animals, crops and trees emit came out of the atmosphere so it is just recycling. The carbon that fossil fuels emit came out of the ground so adds to the carbon in the atmospheric cycle.

            • Gezza

               /  2nd October 2019

              But the carbon emitted by fossil fuels was sequesterd underground & not regularly feeding into the natural carbon cycle, so isn’t the problem that more carbon is now entering the cycle than is being continuously recycled?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd October 2019

              I thought that was exactly my point? Burning fossil fuels matters, farming and forestry doesn’t.

              Did you assume “a different level of issue” meant a greater one?

            • Gezza

               /  3rd October 2019

              No, I couldn’t fathom what the difference between “a different issue” & “a different level of issue” was. Your comment was so brief & arcane thst, in a practical sense, if there is one, it didn’t matter.

              I thought the whole point of forestry (and planting more trees generally) was to soak up & at least temporarily sequester more of the now excess of atmospheric carbon over the amount being continuously recycled.

              But I gather that this hypothesis is wrong because when the forests are harvested the carbon is released again.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  3rd October 2019

              Using ‘than’ implies a greater or less degree.

              Different to is the correct usage. Differences can be equal.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd October 2019

              I said different level of issue because although both contribute carbon to the atmosphere (same issue) one is increasing the long term amount of carbon there and the other isn’t.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd October 2019

              No, different .. than is correct in this instance because of the implied “is” that follows it. You cannot say “different .. to is”.

            • Gezza

               /  3rd October 2019

              Righto. Whatever. I’ve got a headache. Eyestrain probably. New specs still a week away. 10 years since my last eye test & myopia in both eyes has actually improved – left one is normal now – but the astigmatism remains in both. Bowng out for some low light distraction. Nite Al.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  4th October 2019

              Different to, not different than. Americans say different than, and it’s not correct. Than can’t be used with different. A different level of….to…..

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th October 2019

              Yes it can. “… is a different level of issue than burning fossil fuel is”. You can’t put “to” in that structure unless you delete the final is.

              https://jakubmarian.com/different-from-vs-different-than-vs-different-to-in-english/

  8. Pink David

     /  2nd October 2019

    “Continuous growth – economic, population, consumption – is untenable.”

    This is untrue and reflective of a completely misunderstanding of how the world works. The Club of Rome has been pushing this for decades, and has been profoundly wrong with every single prediction they have ever made.

    Reply
  9. Gezza

     /  2nd October 2019

    Good old Aotearoa Spring Weather at Pookden Manor. Was just standing at the fence, after handmowing my back lawn & congratulating myself on its superb performance after I’d sharpened its blades & and bottom plate, looking down at the two Mallard drakes, zipping about snapping up insects on the water in the stream after a beautiful sunny morning, when a short, cold Northwesterly breeze came up – followed within 10 blimmin seconds by a roaring blast from the South, at 2.10 pm, where jet black skies have bowled on up & are right now delivering a best practice hailstorm !

    Thunderstorms are forecast I think. I quite like them, tbh, long as I’m safe & dry. ⛈

    Had to smile as from my kitchen window I watched my resident pair of gregarious tuis fly at top speed out of their favourite pittosporum straight into the different variety of pitto next to it, with the much denser foliage, for cover.

    Reply
  10. Who is attacking her? I’ve not seen anybody attack her. Most people who disagree with her seem to pity her as a child abuse victim. That’s how I feel about her. I am angry at her parents and handlers, not her. Which makes attempts to cast her as a feminist icon all the more ironic.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  2nd October 2019

      I am angry at her brattish behaviour when she screeches at the adults who have provided the technology to allow her to do this and be seen and HEARD worldwide. She comes across as an arrogant and unpleasant little know-all. People will, I imagine, tire of her endless hysterical ranting and she will be dropped as quickly as she was taken up, Her squawking tirades do her cause no favours.

      Reply
    • Maggy Wassilieff

       /  2nd October 2019

      Every child has a right to medical confidentiality.
      Greta’s mother had no right to publish details of her childrens’ mental health.
      The UN should read its own Convention on the Rights of the Child.
      https://www.unicef.org.au/Upload/UNICEF/Media/Our%20work/childfriendlycrc.pdf

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  2nd October 2019

        Greta herself gets a lot of mileage from her Aspergers, she seems to congratulate herself on it as if it was to her credit and some sort of achievement.

        Reply
  11. Pink David

     /  2nd October 2019

    “That has been misrepresented as 12 years until the world will end. The warning was overstated, and that has been amplified by critics.”

    Hmmm, misrepresented? I think this headline is closer to the truth…

    https://babylonbee.com/news/experts-warn-we-have-only-12-years-left-until-they-change-the-dates-on-global-warming-again

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  2nd October 2019

      It’s the way science is done these days. Predictions are made before the evidence for them is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  2nd October 2019

        The Babylon Bee seems to be like The Onion in a way; a satirical site.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  4th October 2019

          That means that it’s takling the micky, PDTs, not meant to be taken seriously or literally. Those who have no imagination and take everything literally can’t understand satire.

          Reply
      • Pink David

         /  2nd October 2019

        “Predictions are made before the evidence for them is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt.”

        If the predictions never come true, what part of this is science?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  2nd October 2019

          At a guess, the same part that is science in “political science”?

          Probably the recording & analysis of data. The problem is not with the science. The problem is with the scientific theory in this case. It doesn’t meet the standard of proof that other hard sciences must.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  3rd October 2019

            A central problem is climate computer models. generally just useless beyond a month let alone 5 years , but they go much further than that.
            The process that they claim ‘makes them work’, is to run dozens of simulations and then like a geeky Trump draw a black marker line through the middle. hey presto – Results.
            The hurricane example was perfect , every few days the track of the hurricane changed considerably, as new model runs were done. ( using satellite data which the climate scientists despise otherwise)
            So Georgia was going to get flattened and drowned in rainfall – but didnt.
            In the end Newfoundland got a hammering …..hahahaha

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  3rd October 2019

              At least, on the upside, thru modelling, there has been a considerable improvement in the general accuracy of weather forecasting in most countries, & frequent updates if things change are appreciated by those reliant on forecasting.

              Huuricane tracks are notoriously difficult to predict. But on some “Wild Weather” program a few weeks back I heard that tornado location, risk assessment & probability reporting has jumped up several notches as well.

            • Gezza

               /  4th October 2019

              🌸

      • Pink David

         /  2nd October 2019

        Paul Ehrlich is the best example of this kind of science. His book ‘The Population Bomb’ was wrong about everything it contained, in every way.

        Here he is 50 years later and he makes yet another laughable claim;

        “Many details and timings of events were wrong, Paul Ehrlich acknowledges today, but he says the book was correct overall.”

        https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/22/collapse-civilisation-near-certain-decades-population-bomb-paul-ehrlich

        He is a mainstream force behind climate science. This is the one of the people they mean when they say ‘Scientists Say……’

        Reply
  12. duperez

     /  3rd October 2019

    Who knows what poor voting rates in the local body elections so far indicates.

    Maybe it is that democracy doesn’t seem to be the answer to all world problems or even just local ones.

    The essence of that electoral system hasn’t changed much but maybe people have. Malcontents and voices of discontent usually don’t put themselves up to get into the system to change it. As far as ‘putting their money where their mouths are’ they want to (metaphorically) put other people’s money where their mouths are.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  3rd October 2019

      Ooo. Shit. 😬

      I’ve meant to sit down with the voting papers one afternoon since Sunday, when ma did.

      Still haven’t done it. I’ll do it today. 😐

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  3rd October 2019

        I did mine last week to make sure that I didn’t forget.

        Some people want to start by being mayor without being on the council or community board first, which seems like dreaming. One man didn’t see the need to proofread his blurb or look tidy in the photo; not a great idea when that’s all we have to go on.

        Reply
    • Sanity from The Federalist? Like this? Climate Worship Is Nothing More Than Rebranded Paganism

      More important than that, conservatives understand that climate change is cynically used by a certain section of people to justify their political goals of steering the West away from its way of life, a way they perceive to be evil and harmful, hetero-patriarchal, and capitalist. How? Appealing to the faith-based part of human brains, the need for subservience, and propping up children as human shields.

      The modern left is a combination of two of the worst impulses in human history. First are the ultra-privileged bourgeoisie, which, having lost their old Judeo-Christian faith, are instinctively attracted to pre-civilized rituals, from overt sexuality to fewer familial ties. Consider Late Roman public orgies, and you get an idea. At the same time, human minds feel a gaping void that still needs to be filled by an alternate faith. It is in that intersection where this occultist, apocalyptic climate paganism comes from.

      That’s a far more ridiculous take on the climate change issue than most.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  4th October 2019

        I note you didn’t bother to cite the lead in paragraph to your quote:
        Much less than destroying the planet, climate change isn’t even a settled science. Conservatives don’t disagree that climate is changing. That is a straw man. Conservatives, however, are opposed to hysteria, have skepticism about the rate of the climate change, and would like to see an actual cost-benefit analysis of the radical changes being demanded.

        However, what is the point of finding a different article by a different writer in order to attack a website that published my sensible article?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  4th October 2019

          This is the problem you get when you toss in a vague one-liner to accompany a link to an article without identifying what it is in particular in there that has made you feel all smug and righteous.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  4th October 2019

            If you don’t think the article is useful or you disagree with it in whole or in part you can say so without my assistance.

            Reply
        • Duker

           /  4th October 2019

          For NZ as a whole September just passed is the coldest for 20 years. It’s just a passing phase , but one group would be dancing around the bonfire of non fossil fuel if was the other way round…indeed it’s barely mentioned

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  4th October 2019

            It wasn’t in the Waikato; I had very low power bills. The last one was just over $50. It;s been a mild winter up here on the whole.

            It’s interesting that this fact (coldest September for 20 years) wasn’t mentioned much, if at all.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  4th October 2019

              I am tired of hearing those who question the reason for climate change and whether anything much can be done to change what is known to be cyclical dismissed sneeringly as climate change deniers. This is a lie when people are not denying the change, merely pointing out that it’s happened before.

  13. Duker

     /  4th October 2019

    Niwas prediction 3 months back
    July – September 2019 temperatures are about equally likely to be near average (40-45% chance) or above average (40-45% chance) for all regions of New Zealand. Despite a low chance for a season with below average temperatures, cold snaps and frosts remain likely to occur.
    It would have been even colder if the sea surface tenmperatures hadn’t remain high from the first half of the year

    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