Nikki Kaye on climate ‘indoctrination’ in schools, Plunket petulant

Sean Plunket is back on talkback, playing to his audience that seems to like grumping about climate change. He asserted that the inclusion of guidelines on teaching about climate change in schools is ‘indoctrination’ as he tries to indoctrinate his listeners with his own views on thee topic.

National spokesperson on education, Nikki Kaye:

National are supportive of climate change being taught in schools. However, the process around developing the curriculum and Ministry led curriculum resources needs to be balanced and communicated well. We have concerns that this decision combined with Ministers press release has caused confusion and angst with some parents because people have thought that this particular resource is now a change to the curriculum.

There has been no change to the curriculum so it is totally up to schools as to whether they use this particular resource or not. We are aware of genuine concerns raised by parents and groups about a lack of balance in this material and also striking the delicate balance of informing children about these issues while not causing unnecessary anxiety. While some material looks fine National has concerns about some of the document.

Seems like a reasonable and considered response, but Plunket isn’t happy (or at least makes out he isn’t happy):

Well this is hardly taking a stand against indoctrination in state schools.

Plunket has also been griping about Jimmy Neesham.

Newshub:  James Shaw thanks Blackcaps star Jimmy Neesham for supporting climate change interview

James Shaw has thanked a Kiwi cricketer for supporting an interview the minister gave about teaching climate change in school – described by an Opposition MP as a “shocker”.

Shaw, co-leader of the Green Party, clashed with Plunket in the interview earlier this week, after being invited to discuss a new teacher resource announced on Sunday for educating year 7-10 students about climate change.

Shaw defended the syllabus in his interview with Plunket, telling the radio host the teaching resource is “based on the science so you can dispute that all you like”.

Plunket shot back: “Well, clearly you can’t dispute that all you like if you’re an intermediate school kid… you’re going to be told you can’t dispute it.”

Shaw replied: “Of course you can, but you’d have to go to town against the entire New Zealand scientific community and suggest that they were wrong.”

Blackcaps star Jimmy Neesham said on Twitter he wanted to take his hat off to Shaw for his “calmness” during the interview with Magic Talk’s Sean Plunket.

The New Zealand cricketer, 29, has been outspoken about his support for climate change activism, recently telling the BBC he feels a responsibility to be a good role model.

“As role models, it is important to keep abreast of what is going on and have at least a passing knowledge of global social issues like politics and climate change.”

So Plunket took a swipe at Neesham: Sean Plunket slams Blackcaps cricketer Jimmy Neesham over climate change comments

But since the interaction, Plunket has hit back at Neesham.

“Well, Jimmy I feel like throwing my bloody phone at the wall often watching the Blackcaps.”

Plunket criticised the cricketer for speaking out about climate change while flying “all over the world”.

“Is that why you catch planes all over the world to play cricket Jimmy?”

He continued to berate the cricketer, seeming to suggest that Neesham’s career is “completely pointless, yet burns up tonnes of carbon”.

The MagicTalk host then commented on the number of Neeshan’s Twitter followers, saying the “number is a lot less than the runs or wickets he’s got”.

This is a pathetic attack in response from Plunket, but I guess Magic and Newshub are trying to start the year with some sort of controversy to get their audience back. They are in fighting for survival as broadcasters, but I doubt this sort of petulance will help, apart from play to a small demographic. It’s unlikely to widen their appeal.

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

49 Comments

  1. Climate change caused by humans is a scam. There is plenty of evidence to support this but the media unashamedly suppress and censor it.
    How often do we hear the plaintive wail “Climate change is real!”, a religious dogma a bit like “Jesus saves” or “Allahu Akkbar!”
    When the models reflect reality people may think again but in the end you can judge an argument by the character and political interests of those making it.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  17th January 2020

      Climate change is real, but it’s happened before. Whether we can do anything to change it is dubious. I believe that we should be doing everything we can to protect the environment, and I do this myself. But will it change the climate to any great extent ?

      I am tired of people like Prince Harry who use planes all the time telling the rest of us how bad it is to make carbon emissions and the rest.

      Reply
      • Grumpy

         /  17th January 2020

        Remember the fake “97% of Climate Scientists agree……”. Remember the predicted melting of the icecaps by now? The destruction of Glaciers? …..and now “the world will end in 8/10/12 years”, depending on how far left the person saying it is?
        In the meantime no drop in the value of baches in the Marlborough Sounds>
        Nobody denies the climate is changing, it always has. Climate changes over thousands of yours, this short term stuff is weather.
        The insane rush by the far left to blame the Aussie fires on AGW has set their argument back fatally.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  17th January 2020

          I remember the glaciers and icecaps melting at X% a year or whatever it was, but not the 97% figure !

          It’s hard to make some people see the difference between climate and weather and is probably wasting time to try.

          I am also tired of people like Little Greta abusing the grownups for doing nothing about the environment; she can’t have heard of the many recycling, reusing, reducing initiatives. If I can reduce rubbish to the extent that I seldom put out more than 2 bags a year, anyone can. It’s no more trouble to put things in the ‘green bin’ than in a dustbin. This may not change the climate, but it cuts down landfill. I am sceptical of those who claim to make ‘zero waste’, I must say.

          Reply
          • Duker

             /  17th January 2020

            I remember reading about the central North Islands bad fire seasons in the 1950s-60s.
            Apparently climate change stopped after that and began again ‘more recently’

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  17th January 2020

              I can’t remember when there were severe floods in the Coromandel area, but it must have been about 20 years ago. There have been major floods before and since, of course, but those ones stand out in my mind as they were unseasonal; about Christmas time. I think.

          • Duker

             /  17th January 2020

            NZs storm of the century was early or mid 1930s , nothing since has come close. Major floods are a very regular thing in NZ , effects reduced somewhat since the 1950s by flood control works in most areas. West coast with small population outside Greymouth Westport and Hokitika arebt protected much, but those places are still at risk because of regular extreme rainfall.
            Even so some parts of Melbourne yesterday had 50 mm rain in 30 mins… So much for the never ending droughts

            Reply
          • Al Man

             /  17th January 2020

            You will find that ‘dubious’ (?) 97% comment reported in Wikipedia.

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

            It does matter that when you refer to point 2 in the supporting research note it actually then states 75%. I find it hard that anyone has even asked 20% of the worlds scientists, let alone 100% for comment on this…..Climate Scientists (which are extremely few solely with these credentials.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  18th January 2020

              It’s impossible to believe that every scientist in the world was asked this, and even if they had been, they are not all specialists in this field. It would be like asking a physicist about chemistry.

              I don’t know how many would have to be asked to make it credible that 97% said x, y and z. Either these questions were not asked at all or a small number of people were asked…and they were hand picked.

  2. Kitty Catkin

     /  17th January 2020

    It’s surely a fair comment when someone sets themselves up as a good role model (shouldn’t other people be saying this ?) and then does the opposite to what they preach ? If Jimmy Neesham believes that carbon emissions are damaging, and it’s likely that he does, why IS he flying all over the world to play cricket ?

    Reply
    • Grumpy

       /  17th January 2020

      At least he hasn’t got a private jet like Al Gore, Harry and Megan and all the other hypocrites!

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  17th January 2020

        The Sussexes don’t own one, they just use one…this makes it all right, of course..

        The hypocrisy of flying to and fro across the Atlantic has not gone unnoticed, from the sound of it.

        Reply
  3. Corky

     /  17th January 2020

    ”Sean Plunket is back on talkback, playing to his audience that seems to like grumping about climate change. ”

    Correct. And let’s include Peter Williams in that.

    ”He asserted that the inclusion of guidelines on teaching about climate change in schools is ‘indoctrination’ as he tries to indoctrinate his listeners with his own views on the topic.”

    I disagree. Most of his listeners I listen to have already made their minds up, or have done the research and are disgusted with this obvious scam not receiving MSM coverage.

    ”Seems like a reasonable and considered response, but Plunket isn’t happy (or at least makes out he isn’t happy).”

    Again I disagree. If National are serious they would put this nonsense on hold. They haven’t because they are scared of the backlash during an election year. National are looking for the middle ground. The problem is there’s no middle ground. Either the scammers are correct; or the sceptics are. Once again Nationals lack of philosophical principles is to the fore.

    ”Shaw replied: “Of course you can, but you’d have to go to town against the entire New Zealand scientific community and suggest that they are wrong.”

    A blatant lie, even allowing for a slight exaggeration to make his point. Magic Radio has interviewed scientists ( I’ve listened to three) who have explained in a cogent manner why
    accepted climate science is both flawed and disingenuous.

    ”This is a pathetic attack in response from Plunket, but I guess Magic and Newshub are trying to start the year with some sort of controversy to get their audience back. ”

    No, it’s not. It’s exactly what scammers are dishing out to those of us who dare to question their religion. What is pathetic is Sean is one of the few asking hard questions. Where are mainstream media journos?

    Yes, the audience is small, but it’s growing. Many listeners and moving from ZB after realising ZB is basically MSM talkback with middle of the road non-thinking hosts apart from Mikey.

    Of course if MSM was doing its job Sean would be looking for another job.

    Reply
  4. alloytoo

     /  17th January 2020

    I thought religious education had to be “Opt-In”

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  17th January 2020

      So did I.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  17th January 2020

        I suppose that it’s the same thing, really, if it’s not compulsory.

        We had a hag who terrified the unlucky children who had her as a Religious Instruction teacher and told 6 year olds that we were responsible for our families’ salvation; if they were not in the Lamb’s Book of Life, they were going to Hell and so were we. She also told frightening stories about things that happened to children, like the little boy who froze because he had to live in a barrel. We were told to keep these things secret.

        When my parents found out, they went to the school (they were probably not the only ones) and she was never seen again.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  17th January 2020

          Why would anyone find it acceptable to pressure 6 year olds in this way ? Bizarre. She must have put more off Christianity than she attracted to it, presenting God as a merciless tyrant !

          Reply
    • Al Man

       /  17th January 2020

      Technically – Religion is an opt in
      Mindfulness is near compulsory; and based in Buddhist teaching.
      Not that I mind, but …………. hmmmm.
      Our kids are being treated like a social experiment?
      Climate Alarmism is near cult following already. Excuse the crass humour.

      Reply
  5. Zedd

     /  17th January 2020

    More Proof that most ‘Righties’ are staunch C-C deniers.. regardless of all the mounting evidence that rising carbon emissions (Green house gases) ARE affecting the global climate: melting glaciers/land-ice, rising sea-levels, record annual temperatures, unprecedented bushfires in Aust. etc. etc. etc. BUT hey feel free to continue your fantasies. while the rest of us, do fact the FACTS

    btw: ‘Grumpy’ your opening statement is just plain B-S ! 😦

    Reply
    • Duker

       /  17th January 2020

      Not “unprecedented bushfires in Aust. etc. etc. etc”
      You are wrong wrong etc on that one. The 1970s fires were larger, other fires have killed more people. etc etc. Bush fire smoke in NZ has been a regular thing for a long time .
      Even Tasman and Cook noted in their journals as they travelled along the coast, the large fires burning in Australia.
      Archaeological records showed an uptick in the quantity of fires both after aborigines arrived and after europeans arrived right up to now( not always arson, just accidents and even fires caused by broken electric lines). Lightning of course naturally starts fires, but most are now human caused directly or indirectly
      They are having flash floods in some downpours in some fire areas …Its called weather

      Reply
      • Zedd

         /  17th January 2020

        oh really… :/

        Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  17th January 2020

        To be fair, these are the most extensive fires ever, I believe.

        If there’s enough rain to cause flash floods, that must be good news.

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  17th January 2020

          Good news because of the fires, dopey PDTs. Water puts fires out.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  17th January 2020

            I didn’t think it necessary to spell that out, but perhaps it was.

            Reply
            • Kitty Catkin

               /  17th January 2020

              As is obvious from the news and the delight with which the rain is being greeted. It hasn’t put all the fires out in those areas, but it’s helping the fire fighters greatly, not to mention the drought-stricken places. And it will make it harder for new fires to start.

              There are some very stupid PDTs around, if they can’t see that heavy rain in bushfires is a good thing. Perhaps they are so dopey that they don’t know that water puts fires out.

        • Duker

           /  17th January 2020

          No they aren’t the most extreme….70s fires burnt out a far far larger area….they weren’t even close to 10 years ago when 1 days fires killed around 120 people. That’s not counting like they are now, people killed in vehicle accident driving back to city a long way from any fire. …some sort of public servant, not even a fireman.
          The hype is killing off in one month Australia as a tourist destination and even Aussies have cancelled a lot of holidays in rural/ coastal areas that haven’t seen any smoke

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  17th January 2020

            I read that it was the most extensive and accepted it, as I didn’t know that it wasn’t. I knew about the appalling death toll in 2009.

            Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  18th January 2020

            I see that the 1974-75 fires burned 15% of Australia !!!!!

            Reply
    • Grumpy

       /  17th January 2020

      Really?? So, how much has the average temperature increased? How much if that is due to humans? If NZ and Australia ceased to exist, how much would that affect the earths temperature, and ……. would it stop bush fires in Australia?

      Reply
    • Al Man

       /  17th January 2020

      I think this is nothing to do with left or right……..Climate Change activism is its own direction.

      Notice I didn’t say anything contrary, but at least I didn’t blame it on right wing voters.
      That sounds a lot like the type of identity politics we see all that question being called.

      Just saying.

      Reply
    • Pink David

       /  17th January 2020

      ” melting glaciers/land-ice”

      Fun fact. Almost all glaciers in NZ are growing and have been for the last 20 years.

      “rising sea-levels”

      Remind us again, when were the Maldives meant to be underwater? Fun fact, the Maldives opened 5 new airports last year alone. I don’t think they are as worried about climate change as they let on.

      Reply
  6. Grumpy

     /  17th January 2020

    Who says the science is settled? See this from the Heartland Institute, seems that data might be cherry picked.
    https://www.redstate.com/tladuke/2020/01/16/767059/

    Reply
    • Science is never settled.

      More settled is the Heartland Institutes lack of credibility as a source on science. They are better known for trying to make controversies out of evolution, and their support of ‘intelligent design’, so they’re likely to think that an intelligent something is responsible for climate variations.

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  18th January 2020

        I think you are mixing up the Heartland Institute with the Discovery Institute.

        Heartland is not a proselytiser of “Intelligent Design”.

        Reply
        • You’re right. Heartland is known for defending smoking, and promoting climate ‘denial’. They are nowhere near a balanced or creditable source on the climate.

          The Heartland Institute is an American conservative and libertarian public policy think tank founded in 1984 and based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. The Institute conducts work on issues including education reform, government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.

          In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[3][4]:233–34[5] Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial.[6][7] It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change,[8] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[9]

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

          Reply
        • Corky

           /  18th January 2020

          I also think conservatism is being mixed up with libertarianism. Even commentators who understand there’s a difference still get it wrong as the following link shows:

          https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/30/key-difference-conservatives-libertarians-matters/

          What has this to do with climate change?:

          One follows the science, or lack thereof. The other generally believes what they are told, then looks for any political advantage or disadvantage surrounding an issue. They are hypocritical in many regards. Nikki Kaye’s stance on Labours proposed climate change indoctrination syllabus for school children is a classic example.

          Reply
  7. Corky

     /  18th January 2020

    I have always looked up to the Swiss for their common sense and thrift. Alas, their young have been taken in by climate scammers. I thought young Swiss would’ve been the last bastion of critical thinkers. I was wrong. What a bleak future awaits our world, and not for the reason these young victims think.

    Oh, and who should turn up?Young Greta. I can’t wait for someone to do to her what Prince did to Kim Kardashian…kick her off the stage.

    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/17/joining-thousands-swiss-climate-strikers-davos-greta-thunberg-tells-world-leaders

    Reply
  8. Alan Wilkinson

     /  18th January 2020

    Spencer has three interesting posts here showing he gets very good correlation with observed temperature datasets with simple models that indicate a climate sensitivity of less than two degrees per doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels.
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  18th January 2020

      (Of course the “thousands” of scientists who reportedly have unquestionable allegiance to global warming alarmism will have neither knowledge nor opinions on such detail. Likewise those who rely on their “support”.)

      Reply
  9. Pink David

     /  19th January 2020

    What happened to all the predictions that claimed snow fall would be a thing of the past?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/19/snowmageddon-cleanup-begins-after-record-newfoundland-storm

    Reply
  1. Nikki Kaye on climate ‘indoctrination’ in schools, Plunket petulant — 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