https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html

This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
2-3mm/year.

Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.

A good comment

All well evidenced.
But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....

This is the really frightening aspect.

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>
>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>2-3mm/year.
A bagatelle.
>
>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
exists.
>
>A good comment
>
>All well evidenced.
>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>
>This is the really frightening aspect.
Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.

On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>
>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>2-3mm/year.
>A bagatelle.
>>
>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
>exists.
>>
>>A good comment
>>
>>All well evidenced.
>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>
>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.

This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
targets relating to climate change arising from the international
Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.

I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
division this early in their term.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>
>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>2-3mm/year.
>>A bagatelle.
>>>
>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
>>exists.
>>>
>>>A good comment
>>>
>>>All well evidenced.
>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>
>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>
>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
That is "clearly" a lie. Yet again you cannot tell the truth.
>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
Nobody is attacking the government other than you.
Areements can and should be reviewed often, this one is way past time for that.
>
>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>division this early in their term.
More lies - can you ever keep to the subject?

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>
>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>2-3mm/year.
>>A bagatelle.
>>>
>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
>>exists.
>>>
>>>A good comment
>>>
>>>All well evidenced.
>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>
>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>
>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>
>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>division this early in their term.

Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
made climate change?

Yes or no?

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>
>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>
>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
>>>exists.
>>>>
>>>>A good comment
>>>>
>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>
>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>
>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>
>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>division this early in their term.
>
>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>made climate change?
>
>Yes or no?
>
>Bill.

That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
made climate change - do you, Bill?

I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>
>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>contrary
>>>>exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>
>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>
>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>
>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>division this early in their term.
>>
>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>made climate change?
>>
>>Yes or no?
>>
>>Bill.
>
>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>
>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
Political hogwash.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>
>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>contrary
>>>>exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>
>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>
>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>
>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>division this early in their term.
>>
>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>made climate change?
>>
>>Yes or no?
>>
>>Bill.
>
>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>
>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
I am sure you will ignore this or you will be abusive of the writers but
anybody else might enjoy a balanced view.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>contrary
>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>
>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>made climate change?
>>>
>>>Yes or no?
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>
>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>
>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>I am sure you will ignore this or you will be abusive of the writers but
>anybody else might enjoy a balanced view.
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816

That article does not contradict anything I have said - but it does
not talk about New Zealand's commitments under the Climate Change
Treaty that the then National -led Government signed us up to . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>
>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>made climate change?
>>>>
>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>
>>>>Bill.
>>>
>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>
>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>I am sure you will ignore this or you will be abusive of the writers but
>>anybody else might enjoy a balanced view.
>>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816
>
>That article does not contradict anything I have said
It contracdicts many things you have said in the past but are subtly drawing
back from as the real science becomes much better accepted.
> - but it does
>not talk about New Zealand's commitments under the Climate Change
>Treaty that the then National -led Government signed us up to . . .
Irrelevant. The treaty is not binding and even if it was it can always be
re-nogotiated or cancelled. Simple stuff really.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>>
>>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>>made climate change?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill.
>>>>
>>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>>
>>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
>>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>>next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>>I am sure you will ignore this or you will be abusive of the writers but
>>>anybody else might enjoy a balanced view.
>>>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816
>>
>>That article does not contradict anything I have said
>It contracdicts many things you have said in the past but are subtly drawing
>back from as the real science becomes much better accepted.
>> - but it does
>>not talk about New Zealand's commitments under the Climate Change
>>Treaty that the then National -led Government signed us up to . . .
>Irrelevant. The treaty is not binding and even if it was it can always be
>re-nogotiated or cancelled. Simple stuff really.
You have raised that stupid proposal before - what do you think the
effect of such a withdrawal from a Treaty may be to New Zealand, Tony?
Has any New Zealand government ever raised that as a possible way to
avoid commitments? You are just pissing into the wind . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:20:38 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:32:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average,
>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political
>>>>>>>>beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>>>made climate change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill.
>>>>>
>>>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets. It is a
>>>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>>>next few years. Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>>>I am sure you will ignore this or you will be abusive of the writers but
>>>>anybody else might enjoy a balanced view.
>>>>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2024.2329816
>>>
>>>That article does not contradict anything I have said
>>It contracdicts many things you have said in the past but are subtly drawing
>>back from as the real science becomes much better accepted.
>>> - but it does
>>>not talk about New Zealand's commitments under the Climate Change
>>>Treaty that the then National -led Government signed us up to . . .
>>Irrelevant. The treaty is not binding and even if it was it can always be
>>re-nogotiated or cancelled. Simple stuff really.
>You have raised that stupid proposal before - what do you think the
>effect of such a withdrawal from a Treaty may be to New Zealand, Tony?
Probably zero.
>Has any New Zealand government ever raised that as a possible way to
>avoid commitments?
Abuse removed
Irrelevant nonsense. Treaties are always being re-nogotiated by many
governmente and including ours. It is daily work. As it should be.
Your point is pathetic.

On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>
>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
>>>>exists.
>>>>>
>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>
>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>
>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>
>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>
>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>division this early in their term.
>>
>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>made climate change?
>>
>>Yes or no?
>>
>>Bill.
>
>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>made climate change - do you, Bill?

OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?

>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.

You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
this straight.

You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
for not meeting those targets.

Have I got that about right?

> It is a
>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>next few years.

So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
best interests?

>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?

What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
will be substantial costs for non-compliance?

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:59 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which is
>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the contrary
>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>
>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>made climate change?
>>>
>>>Yes or no?
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>
>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>
>OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?
The Green Party do not believe that catastrophic climate change is
solely due to mankind . . .

>
>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.
>
>You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
>this straight.
>
>You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
>forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
>know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
>that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
>for not meeting those targets.
The treaty is not about catastrophic man-made climate change - it is
about mitigating the effect on mankind on climate change, which while
relatively small, is creating a potential catastrophic change to our
climate.
>
>Have I got that about right?
Of course not

>> It is a
>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>next few years.
>
>So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
>best interests?
Because it is a global problem and New Zealand has done well from
having an independent but active involvement in international issues,
we are joining other countries concerned about global change to agree
to do our share, and because it is also important to our trade - if we
renege on the commitments we have made we may well lose trade
partners. It seems some far-right nutters don't think trade matters.
>
>>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>
>What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
>agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
>will be substantial costs for non-compliance?
>
>Bill.
Perhaps my responses may give you a reason for expressing a personal
view . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:59 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>
>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>made climate change?
>>>>
>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>
>>>>Bill.
>>>
>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>
>>OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?
>The Green Party do not believe that catastrophic climate change is
>solely due to mankind . . .
>
>>
>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.
>>
>>You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
>>this straight.
>>
>>You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
>>forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
>>know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
>>that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
>>for not meeting those targets.
>The treaty is not about catastrophic man-made climate change - it is
>about mitigating the effect on mankind on climate change, which while
>relatively small, is creating a potential catastrophic change to our
>climate.
It is not - find some prrof or go away.
>>
>>Have I got that about right?
>Of course not
Yup.
>
>>> It is a
>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>next few years.
>>
>>So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
>>best interests?
>Because it is a global problem and New Zealand has done well from
>having an independent but active involvement in international issues,
>we are joining other countries concerned about global change to agree
>to do our share, and because it is also important to our trade - if we
>renege on the commitments we have made we may well lose trade
>partners. It seems some far-right nutters don't think trade matters.
Nonsense.
>>
>>>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>
>>What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
>>agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
>>will be substantial costs for non-compliance?
>>
>>Bill.
>Perhaps my responses may give you a reason for expressing a personal
>view . . .

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:59 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which
>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>>
>>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>>made climate change?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill.
>>>>
>>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>
>>>OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?
>>The Green Party do not believe that catastrophic climate change is
>>solely due to mankind . . .
>>
>>>
>>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.
>>>
>>>You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
>>>this straight.
>>>
>>>You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
>>>forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
>>>know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
>>>that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
>>>for not meeting those targets.
>>The treaty is not about catastrophic man-made climate change - it is
>>about mitigating the effect on mankind on climate change, which while
>>relatively small, is creating a potential catastrophic change to our
>>climate.
>It is not - find some prrof or go away.
There area lot of Professors that have shown that you are wrong; but
there is no arguing with a bigoted denier.

>>>
>>>Have I got that about right?
>>Of course not
>Yup.
Thank you for your admission that I was right.
>>
>>>> It is a
>>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>>next few years.
>>>
>>>So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
>>>best interests?
>>Because it is a global problem and New Zealand has done well from
>>having an independent but active involvement in international issues,
>>we are joining other countries concerned about global change to agree
>>to do our share, and because it is also important to our trade - if we
>>renege on the commitments we have made we may well lose trade
>>partners. It seems some far-right nutters don't think trade matters.
>Nonsense.
>>>
>>>>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>>
>>>What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
>>>agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
>>>will be substantial costs for non-compliance?
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>Perhaps my responses may give you a reason for expressing a personal
>>view . . .

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:59 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising
>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average,
>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political
>>>>>>>>beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>>>made climate change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill.
>>>>>
>>>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>>
>>>>OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?
>>>The Green Party do not believe that catastrophic climate change is
>>>solely due to mankind . . .
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.
>>>>
>>>>You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
>>>>this straight.
>>>>
>>>>You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
>>>>forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
>>>>know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
>>>>that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
>>>>for not meeting those targets.
>>>The treaty is not about catastrophic man-made climate change - it is
>>>about mitigating the effect on mankind on climate change, which while
>>>relatively small, is creating a potential catastrophic change to our
>>>climate.
>>It is not - find some prrof or go away.
>There area lot of Professors that have shown that you are wrong; but
>there is no arguing with a bigoted denier.
Provide the evidence dimwit. you keep saying it exists but where the hell is
it? Do tell us!
>
>>>>
>>>>Have I got that about right?
>>>Of course not
>>Yup.
>Thank you for your admission that I was right.
You are wrong. Period!
>>>
>>>>> It is a
>>>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>>>next few years.
>>>>
>>>>So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
>>>>best interests?
>>>Because it is a global problem and New Zealand has done well from
>>>having an independent but active involvement in international issues,
>>>we are joining other countries concerned about global change to agree
>>>to do our share, and because it is also important to our trade - if we
>>>renege on the commitments we have made we may well lose trade
>>>partners. It seems some far-right nutters don't think trade matters.
>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>>>
>>>>What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
>>>>agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
>>>>will be substantial costs for non-compliance?
>>>>
>>>>Bill.
>>>Perhaps my responses may give you a reason for expressing a personal
>>>view . . .

On 2024-04-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:59 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are rising in
>>>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average, which
>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political beliefs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>>>made climate change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bill.
>>>>>
>>>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>>
>>>>OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?
>>>The Green Party do not believe that catastrophic climate change is
>>>solely due to mankind . . .
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.
>>>>
>>>>You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
>>>>this straight.
>>>>
>>>>You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
>>>>forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
>>>>know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
>>>>that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
>>>>for not meeting those targets.
>>>The treaty is not about catastrophic man-made climate change - it is
>>>about mitigating the effect on mankind on climate change, which while
>>>relatively small, is creating a potential catastrophic change to our
>>>climate.
>>It is not - find some prrof or go away.
> There area lot of Professors that have shown that you are wrong; but
> there is no arguing with a bigoted denier.

This is totally correct, and yet you continue to do it.

Have you ever considered that you might be the bigoted denier?

>
>>>>
>>>>Have I got that about right?
>>>Of course not
>>Yup.
> Thank you for your admission that I was right.
>>>
>>>>> It is a
>>>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>>>next few years.
>>>>
>>>>So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
>>>>best interests?
>>>Because it is a global problem and New Zealand has done well from
>>>having an independent but active involvement in international issues,
>>>we are joining other countries concerned about global change to agree
>>>to do our share, and because it is also important to our trade - if we
>>>renege on the commitments we have made we may well lose trade
>>>partners. It seems some far-right nutters don't think trade matters.
>>Nonsense.
>>>>
>>>>>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>>>
>>>>What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
>>>>agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
>>>>will be substantial costs for non-compliance?
>>>>
>>>>Bill.
>>>Perhaps my responses may give you a reason for expressing a personal
>>>view . . .

Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>On 2024-04-08, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:38:42 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 08 Apr 2024 17:50:59 +1200, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 07 Apr 2024 20:46:12 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 20:16:36 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 06 Apr 2024 15:57:01 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 00:31:13 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/04/ian-bradford-large-sea-level-rises-no.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is yet another article which shows that the sea levels are
>>>>>>>>>>rising in
>>>>>>>>>>places, lowering in others, less in some places than the average,
>>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>>>>2-3mm/year.
>>>>>>>>>A bagatelle.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Oh yes, also CO2 levels have nothing to do with it.
>>>>>>>>>CO2 levels are in no way threatening, and no scientific proof to the
>>>>>>>>>contrary
>>>>>>>>>exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A good comment
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All well evidenced.
>>>>>>>>>>But...... nothing will deter the climate warriors who rage on.....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is the really frightening aspect.
>>>>>>>>>Yes it is. They are driven by ignorance, greed or crazy political
>>>>>>>>>beliefs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is clearly an unwarranted and vicious attempt at disinformation
>>>>>>>>to attack the current government who have committed to meeting the
>>>>>>>>targets relating to climate change arising from the international
>>>>>>>>Treaty a previous National-led government signed New Zealand up to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I suspect these people are past supporters of the National Party who
>>>>>>>>have moved to support the ACT Party, and are seeking to discredit
>>>>>>>>Christopher Luxon with the hope that the current coalition will fall
>>>>>>>>apart and enable David Seymour to come through as the dominant Right
>>>>>>>>wing politician at the subsequent election - but it is certainly
>>>>>>>>unusual to find a new government being riven by such a high level of
>>>>>>>>division this early in their term.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Without mentioning party politics, do you believe in catastrophic man
>>>>>>>made climate change?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes or no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bill.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That question keeps being asked by people who are really just being
>>>>>>mischievous - I do not know of anyone who believes in catastrophic man
>>>>>>made climate change - do you, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>>OK, so the Green party are a bunch of fakers. Who would have thought?
>>>>The Green Party do not believe that catastrophic climate change is
>>>>solely due to mankind . . .
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I do however believe that it was in the interests of New Zealand that
>>>>>>a previous National-led government signed us up to an International
>>>>>>Agreement under which New Zealand is committed to certain reductions
>>>>>>in for example carbon emissions, and an acceptance that there are
>>>>>>substantial costs to be met should we not reach those targets.
>>>>>
>>>>>You couldn't resist bringing party politics into it, but let me get
>>>>>this straight.
>>>>>
>>>>>You approve of NZ's signing onto an international agreement which
>>>>>forces the country to reduce carbon emissions, even though you don't
>>>>>know anyone who believes in catastrophic man made climate change, and
>>>>>that it is in the interests of New Zealand to accept substantial costs
>>>>>for not meeting those targets.
>>>>The treaty is not about catastrophic man-made climate change - it is
>>>>about mitigating the effect on mankind on climate change, which while
>>>>relatively small, is creating a potential catastrophic change to our
>>>>climate.
>>>It is not - find some prrof or go away.
>> There area lot of Professors that have shown that you are wrong; but
>> there is no arguing with a bigoted denier.
>
>This is totally correct, and yet you continue to do it.
>
>Have you ever considered that you might be the bigoted denier?
No he has not - that sort of awareness requires a modest amount of honesty.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Have I got that about right?
>>>>Of course not
>>>Yup.
>> Thank you for your admission that I was right.
>>>>
>>>>>> It is a
>>>>>>complex area, but many find it sad that, while a majority of MPs in
>>>>>>Parliament support that agreement, the government is currently risking
>>>>>>our not meeting targets and having to pay considerable sums in the
>>>>>>next few years.
>>>>>
>>>>>So why do you believe that signing on to such an agreement was in NZ's
>>>>>best interests?
>>>>Because it is a global problem and New Zealand has done well from
>>>>having an independent but active involvement in international issues,
>>>>we are joining other countries concerned about global change to agree
>>>>to do our share, and because it is also important to our trade - if we
>>>>renege on the commitments we have made we may well lose trade
>>>>partners. It seems some far-right nutters don't think trade matters.
>>>Nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you disagree with that summary of New Zealand's
>>>>>>situation at present in relation to "Climate Change", Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>>What part should I disagree with? The part where it says that this
>>>>>agreement is in NZ's best interests, or the part where you say there
>>>>>will be substantial costs for non-compliance?
>>>>>
>>>>>Bill.
>>>>Perhaps my responses may give you a reason for expressing a personal
>>>>view . . .