Cr MacTavish in tears as climate plan debated

I left the following comments at

The article is about a somewhat naive young councillor of the City of Dunedin New Zealand using her waterworks to ensure that the rate payers of the region spend an extra NZ$295,000 to ensure a climate change planning project is given priority.

This same paper has published commentary of what parts of the city will be flooded if global warming induced sea level rises (as I recall) of nine meters above the present occur .

Ever get the feeling that this paper is converted to the AGW religion?

My comment below was not published. Unfortunately I did not keep a copy of it, but went something  like this.


Comment 1.

I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

AGW is baloney anyway!



Comment 2.

I notice you did not see fit to publish my previous comment which contained some standard economic analysis of the consquences of going down the road that Cr MacTavish is leading your council.

This is disappointing and leads me to suspect that the editor of the ODT is less than even handed when it comes to dealing with AGW issues.

 Sure my comment showed likely bad news but it is not rocket science and the logic is there plain to be followed.

I must say that this is evidence of bias on the part of the ODT which I must say is not uncommon among believers in “Global Warming”.

Needless to say, but I remind you that it is a publishers duty to demonstrate even handedness when dealing with issues of this sort and is little short of a crime if an editor’s bias effects a subject so very important for us all.

This comment will be published at for the benefit of my readers and will help them form an opinion of your newspaper.




I must apologise for my comments about the Otago Daily Times as I received the folowing email from the editor.

I’m sorry I have been away for the past two days so have been unable to
deal with your original comment.

As it stands your comment is too long.  My suggestion would be that you
re-post as a reader opinion story or it will require serious editing.

As for your comments below, you must be an infrequent reader of ODT
Online.  For the record,  ODT Online has published many more comments
from readers sceptical of global warming than comments from those who
accept the scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is
occurring. This is not because of any bias; it is simply because we
receive more comments from sceptics.

You can submit a reader opinion story here


I did submit my comment as the editor suggested. It can be seen at

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: