Skip to main content

Think of the Walruses. Especially the child Walruses.

The headline blared:

"If These 35,000 Walruses Can't Convince You Climate Change Is Real, I Don't Know What to Tell You" [Photographic Proof]

Sounded like a double dog dare, too good to resist. About 3 minutes later, I was done. A blogsite called "Polar Bear Science" produced documented evidence that such events as described in the above scare mongering have been common for hundreds of years. [Not a new thing]

Either way, so what do these people think the appropriate response to reverse the change of climate? The common responses so far are a very small tax applied to New Zealanders (Green Party) to population reduction on a global scale (Green Party) to banning the use of coal (Green Party) to banning the use of coal, gas, oil and nuclear power (Green Party), to car-less days (Green Party) to calling National and Labour evil (Green Party) to paying a lot more tax to a UN funded body that would ensure World Wide Regulations preventing the rich countries from polluting and the poorer countries from improving their standard of living, sometimes called "industrialization and modernization" (Green Party)

Green Party: New campaign slogan "I am the walrus, Goo goo g' joob".

Hattip: Whoar

My apologies for being lazy - I'm not going to bother linking the Green Party policies to my statements. Refute them if you can (or care). However, the bigger question is do you think climate can be controlled by mankind? If so, are the solutions required to be so radical they would knock us back to the stone age, and kill millions? If you think it through, it might be better to plan to adapt to whatever happens.


  1. Here's what I'd do, get NZ producing more goods. We produce, farming, and we get money from tourism. If we were to produce more things, this would in itself solve the so called climate change problem. 31% of pollution is caused by international trade. I'm not saying no trade. But I am saying, every time we can produce something, this helps our environment. And why isn't the carbon tax growing our own trees. At least if this was to happen, the money would stay in the country. Or how bout the carbon tax you pay, goes into an account for two years. And if you buy an energy efficient appliance, you can use that money you've put aside. This would actually do something about the problem, and keep the money in the country. The Green's solutions don't solve anything. In fact it raises the cost of living and the cost of business, which makes it more difficult for us to compete with overseas, and that's why we are stuck with dairy and tourism.


Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.

Popular posts from this blog

Sine dominico non possumus

This post was inspired by posts on TBR and A Servant's Thoughts on male vs female church attendance. ... "We Cannot Live without Sunday," takes us back to the year 304, when Emperor Diocletian prohibited Christians, under pain of death , to possess the Scriptures, to meet on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist and to build premises for their assemblies. In Abitene, a small village in what today is Tunis, 49 Christians , meeting in the home of Octavius Felix, were taken by surprise on a Sunday while celebrating the Eucharist, defying the imperial prohibitions. Arrested , they were taken to Carthage to be interrogated by the proconsul Anulinus. Significant, in particular, was the response given to the proconsul by Emeritus, after being asked why he had violated the emperor's order. He said: "Sine dominico non possumus," we cannot live without meeting on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist. We would not have the strength to face the daily difficulties and not

Greenism a symptom of the intellectual decline of the west

People have got to eat. To eat they either have to grow food or do something useful which they can exchange for food. Squid is good food so some people go and catch squid and exchange it for the things they need to survive and prosper in this sorry world. Some people think catching squid is bad because it impacts on the sealions or something and therefore the Government shouldn't let people catch squid. The people who think other people shouldn't catch squid are very often people who are prospering, they are often employed in secure jobs and paid from taxes extracted from the people who do useful things, things like catching squid funnily enough. Squid that can be consumed in fancy eateries where University lecturers can dine upon dishes like calamari green salad and seafood chowder while lamenting with their colleagues how "greedy humans" are raping the planet. And killing the sea lions and polar bears in order to "line their pockets". Really of


The University College London Union will probably never see any irony in this. The president of a London university atheist society has resigned over a row about an image of the Prophet Muhammad. The society at University College London (UCL) published an image on its Facebook page showing "Jesus and Mo" having a drink at a bar. The atheist group was asked by the UCL union to remove it, but refused and started a petition defending its freedom of expression. A student Muslim group began a counter-petition asking for its removal. The cartoon in question of course is designed to be offensive to Christians as well as Muslims. "The society was asked to remove the image because UCLU aims to foster good relations between different groups of students and create a safe environment where all students can benefit from societies regardless of their religious or other beliefs." Source: Muhammad cartoon row leads to resignation