Global warming is nonsense.

[Tony]

https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/02/16/96-of-carbon-dioxide-comes-from-natural-causes/
Worth reading.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.

<https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>

[Willy Nilly]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.

The operative word is "apparently".

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

That’s only your theory.

[Tony]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>Apparently ocean temperatures are rising faster than expected.
>
><https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/02/skyrocketing-ocean-temperatures-have-scientists-scratching-their-heads/>

Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been. That does not mean we are
experiencing global warming - that report refers to a momentary fluctuation and
proves nothing.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:

> Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.

Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.

[Rich80105]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:

Just the first section shows that they are reporting more than
"momentary fluctuations" - the graph shows data from 1981 to 2024, and
shows a definite trend over years. It is however quite a long article,
with additional graphs and conclusions that indicate that he long term
trends are real and not trivial.

[Tony]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.

[Tony]

1981 to 2024 is but a blip in the timelione of this world - obviously that is
not long term.
This article is referring to short term fluctuations and any suggestion to the
contrary is nonsense.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than
you can stomach?

[Tony]

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
>>>
>>>Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
>>
>> Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
>
>Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than
>you can stomach?

I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a tanty,
but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
As for scientific evidence, the science is not settled and there are excellent
scientists who disagree on this topic - so maybe you need an antacid or two.

[Rich80105]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:10:50 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:

Readers of nz.general should take note that Tony more than once
changed the record of previous posts by another poster to
substantially change the meaning, and also often deletes posts that he
disagrees with.

[Rich80105]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 05:58:07 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>

wrote:

>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:
>>
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
>>>>
>>>>Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
>>>
>>> Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
>>
>>Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than
>>you can stomach?
>I have to confess that it did not occur to me that you were throwing a tanty,
>but hey - ifthat is what you need, so be it.
>As for scientific evidence, the science is not settled and there are excellent
>scientists who disagree on this topic - so maybe you need an antacid or two.

[Tony]

Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your
infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward. Period.

[Tony]

[Rich80105]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:05:55 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>

[Rich80105]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:06:16 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:

[Rich80105]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 08:06:16 GMT, Tony <lizan...@orcon.net.nz>
wrote:

[BR]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 03:33:51 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

<l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 02:08:56 GMT, Tony wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 23:48:52 GMT, Tony wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes there are fluctuations - there always have been.
>>>
>>>Short-term fluctuations, long-term trends.
>>
>> Sometimes but by no means always, but a trite and childish comment.
>
>Throwing a tanty over reality? Aw, diddums. Scientific evidence more than
>you can stomach?

What scientific evidence?

Bill.

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

[Tony]

[Tony]

[Tony]

Rich - they know what you are and what you deserve so you can forget your
infantile holier-than-thou garbage. You are a lying, abusive, coward.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:

> What scientific evidence?

Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers”, which measure
something called “temperature”. They have records of the readings from
these “thermometers” going back decades. They put it all together with
something called “mathematics”, based on “physical models”.
They also make pretty pictures out of these numbers, so those who can’t
understand numbers can still see the patterns. E.g.

You’ll notice from these graphs and maps that the temperature
anomalies may be a degree or two Celsius warmer, which may not
sound like much. But for the seas, it really is: Unlike land,
which rapidly heats and cools as day turns to night and back
again, it takes a lot to warm up an ocean that may be thousands of
feet deep.

and

Now check out the graph above, which shows sea surface temperature
anomalies since the late 1800s. Things really started warming up
in the 1980s, but notice the red spikes well before, in the early
1940s.

Note that those same “physical models” are used to produce your weather
report. So if you don’t like these “physical models”, by all means don’t
trust your weather report. But bear in mind that lots of people do, not
just for business but also for safety, including the farmers who supply
your food and the airlines that carry you around the world.

[Willy Nilly]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers”, which measure
>something called “temperature”. They have records of the readings from
>these “thermometers” going back decades.

Fake data. You just do not realise the kind of world that you are
living in -- everything has been corrupted.

[Rich80105]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, w...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>>Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers�€?, which measure
>>something called “temperature�€?. They have records of the readings from
>>these “thermometers�€? going back decades.

>
>Fake data. You just do not realise the kind of world that you are
>living in -- everything has been corrupted.
>

I find weather forecasts and temperature predictions are if anything
slightly more reliable than a few years ago - what corruption are you
talking about?

[Willy Nilly]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> what corruption are you talking about?

That same corruption which pays you for posting your nonsense.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>

>> Note that those same “physical models” are used to produce your weather
>> report. So if you don’t like these “physical models”, by all means
>> don’t trust your weather report. But bear in mind that lots of people
>> do, not just for business but also for safety, including the farmers
>> who supply your food and the airlines that carry you around the world.
>

> Fake data.

Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be
imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood
would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work. Too many parts of
the economy have become dependent on accurate weather and climate
modelling in order for any scam to go unnoticed.

No doubt your favourite random Facebook/Xwitter/TruthSocial/FoxNews loony
has their own network of imaginary sensors picking up alternative readings
from some fantasy Universe. But your livelihood, your very wellbeing
depends on real readings from this real Universe.

[Willy Nilly]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
>> Fake data.
>
>Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be
>imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood
>would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work.

That's right, but failure takes time. The fakeness has really taken
off in the past 20 years, especially now with the "loss of expertise"
consequent to DEI, and those infrastructures are indeed endangered.
You won't understand that this dynamic is happening until your
electricity fails, then you will finally know.

>Too many parts of the economy have become dependent on accurate
> weather and climate modelling in order for any scam to go unnoticed.

Don't conflate weather with climate. Weather forecasting is good,
climate forecasting is fake; the climateers don't even understand the
ice ages -- which dominate past climate -- yet they pretend to
understand future climate. They are fakers.

> your favourite random Facebook/Xwitter/TruthSocial/FoxNews loony

You are projecting, like all lefties do.

> But your livelihood, your very wellbeing
> depends on real readings from this real Universe.

And so does yours; prepare to be very *very* disappointed.

[Rich80105]

Your selective deletion appears to be an attempt to change the subject
of the discussion.

from a previous post:
___________________________________________

slightly more reliable than a few years ago - what corruption are you
talking about?
_____________________________________

So in the context of decades of data relating to temperature and
thermometers, what is the fake data and corruption that you were
referring to, Willy Nilly?

[Rich80105]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 03:19:48 GMT, w...@qwert.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
>>> Fake data.
>>
>>Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be
>>imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood
>>would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work.
>
>That's right, but failure takes time. The fakeness has really taken
>off in the past 20 years, especially now with the "loss of expertise"
>consequent to DEI, and those infrastructures are indeed endangered.
>You won't understand that this dynamic is happening until your
>electricity fails, then you will finally know.

DEI is at times used to refer to "Diversity, equity and inclusion" -
what "loss of expertise" are you referring to?

>
>>Too many parts of the economy have become dependent on accurate
>> weather and climate modelling in order for any scam to go unnoticed.
>
>Don't conflate weather with climate. Weather forecasting is good,
>climate forecasting is fake; the climateers don't even understand the
>ice ages -- which dominate past climate -- yet they pretend to
>understand future climate. They are fakers.
>
>> your favourite random Facebook/Xwitter/TruthSocial/FoxNews loony
>
>You are projecting, like all lefties do.
>
>> But your livelihood, your very wellbeing
>> depends on real readings from this real Universe.
>
>And so does yours; prepare to be very *very* disappointed.

What are you referring to here, Willy Nilly - in what way, and why,
should people prepare to be disappointed? Do you have any references
that would help us understand what you are referring to?

[BR]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<l...@nz.invalid> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
>
>> What scientific evidence?
>

>Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers”, etc.

Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years
failed?

[Rich80105]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
><l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
>>
>>> What scientific evidence?
>>
>>Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers”, etc.
>
>Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years
>failed?
>
>Bill.

Could you name a few that have failed, BR.

Buried in another article there is an interesting "Chart of the Day" a
few pages down in:
https://thekaka.substack.com/p/the-holes-in-nationals-water-reform

which looks at a range of climate change indicators, showing that many
are changing fast from historic levels.

[Tony]

You, once more, deliberately change the subject.
Nobody, that is nobody (get it? an absence of people) in this group is saying
that the climate is not changing - and so far as I recall nobody ever has.
That is not the damn subject.
The subject is that there have been dire predictions about what will happen to
humanity for about fifty years now - and none of them have come true.
Keep on subject or start your own thread.

[BR]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>><l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
>>>
>>>> What scientific evidence?
>>>
>>>Well, you see, they have these things called “thermometers”, etc.
>>
>>Then why has every climate disaster prediction in the last 50 years
>>failed?
>>
>>Bill.
>
>Could you name a few that have failed, BR.

Here's one:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Canberra Times

Monday September 26, 1988

THREAT TO ISLANDS

MALE, Maldives: A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to
completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 islands within the
next 30 years, according to authorities.

THe Environmental Affairs Director, Mr Hussein Shihbab, said an
estimated rise of 20 to 30 centimetres in the next 20 to 40 years
could be "catastrophic" for most of the islands, which were no more
than a metre above sea level.

The United Nations Environment Project was planning a study of the
problem.

But the end of the Maldives and it's 200,000 people could come sooner
if drinking water supplies dry up by 1992, as predicted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Rich80105]

Well done Bill - yes the predictions were not correct - but how wrong
were they?

The predictions back in 1988 was expressed as a rise of 20 to 30
centimetres in 20 to 40 years - that is consistent with what is said
against 1988 here:
https://www.ecohubmap.com/hot-spot/sea-level-rise-around-the-maldives/exumklf5kfhie

Predictions in the years after that changed, both as more information
became available or reality diverged from previous predictions - and
also as people in the area changed what they did - a new island in
2002, evacuation of more than 1600 people in 2007, discovery in 2020
that tides were moving sediment other than expected, giving a
possibility of land rising instead of sinking. Which brings us to 2022
with greater uncertainty than ever, but still with rising sea levels
around 3mm per year, and greater uncertainty. The islands are expected
(on a mid-level scenario) to lose 77% of current land area by around
2100 - or in another scenario to be almost completely inundated by
about 2085.

Go down to 1950 in the article, and they say that actual rises in sea
level have been from 0.8 to 1.6 millimeters - say about 1.2 mm per
year, but from the 2022 comment the current annual rise is currently
approximately 3mm per year.

If you lived in the Maldives would you see rising sea levels and
"climate change" as a serious issue?

[BR]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>

So why do you still believe them?

Here's another one.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Argus Press - Owosso, Michigan Tues, June 24 2008

By SETH BORENSTEIN

AP Science Writer

NASA Scientist: 'We're toast'

"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes" Hansen told
the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and
it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10
years the Arctic will be free of ice in the summer.

Longtime global warming Skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, citing a
recent poll, said in a statement, Hansen, (former Vice President) Gore
and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the
1980s, but Americans are not buying it."

But Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., committee chairman, said, "Dr Hansen was
right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>The predictions back in 1988 was expressed as a rise of 20 to 30
>centimetres in 20 to 40 years - that is consistent with what is said
>against 1988 here:
>https://www.ecohubmap.com/hot-spot/sea-level-rise-around-the-maldives/exumklf5kfhie

I have been watching the tides going up and down from my French
windows for the last 19 years, and in all that time there has been no
perceptible change in tidal behaviour.

>
>Predictions in the years after that changed, both as more information
>became available or reality diverged from previous predictions - and
>also as people in the area changed what they did - a new island in
>2002, evacuation of more than 1600 people in 2007, discovery in 2020
>that tides were moving sediment other than expected, giving a
>possibility of land rising instead of sinking. Which brings us to 2022
>with greater uncertainty than ever, but still with rising sea levels
>around 3mm per year, and greater uncertainty.

Says who?

>The islands are expected
>(on a mid-level scenario) to lose 77% of current land area by around
>2100 - or in another scenario to be almost completely inundated by
>about 2085.

So they've put the date back. Colour me surprised. It's like what is
said about nuclear fusion. 30 years away and always will be.

>Go down to 1950 in the article, and they say that actual rises in sea
>level have been from 0.8 to 1.6 millimeters - say about 1.2 mm per
>year, but from the 2022 comment the current annual rise is currently
>approximately 3mm per year.
>
>If you lived in the Maldives would you see rising sea levels and
>"climate change" as a serious issue?

No I would not. It's bullshit.

Here's their references:

Wikipedia
abcnNEWS
IMPACT2C
Union of Concerned Scientists
Maldives Floating City
The World Bank Group

Lies and propaganda. All of it.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 03:19:48 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Feb 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 00:27:33 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
>>> Fake data.
>>
>>Like I said, if the system didn’t work, your food supply would be
>>imperilled, even your travel would be imperilled, likely your livelihood
>>would be imperilled as well. Things just wouldn’t work.
>
> That's right, but failure takes time. The fakeness has really taken off

> in the past 20 years ...

Interesting you say that, because weather forecasts have been getting more
accurate in that time (and before), not less. This is why we are able to
rely on them more.

[Rich80105]

Because from what I have read (and that is more than the material
quoted in this thread), I believe that the concerns are valid, but the
timing and extent of sea rises remains uncertain. I can predict that
you will die in less than one hundred years with some certainty, and
you will probably believe that too, but when it goes to saying which
year, or even which decade, I cannot give you that precision. - with
your date of birth I could attempt some precision, and with gender and
other health indications perhaps amend that a bit; but any single
prediction is likely to be wrong, without making a central estimate
invalid as a reasonable estimate based on incomplete knowledge

That probably applies to both attempts at precision and objections to
that from both sides, Bill.

[Tony]

That is absolute nonsense.
You have deliberately ignored and misinterpreted what has been given to you.

None of the predictions have come true, absolutely none. Not one!
Sheesh a thick skull has nothing on you.

[Ras Mikaere]

YOU FUCKERS CANNOT SEE THE MASSIVE SMOG LAYER,
COMING INTO LOS ANGELES AIRPORT -- AND EVERY AREA
OF THE UNITED STATES -- AND CHINA -- ETC.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL -- WELL APART FROM THE NOW
CONFIRMED CHEMTRAILS OPERERATIONS / ONGOING.
ADMITTED AND MASSIVE MONIES SPENT.

YOU FUCKERS ARE WATCHING A STUPID MOVIE,
OR ASLEEP, OR EATING -- AND NEVER LOOKING AT
THE SMOG LAYERS AROUND THE WORLD.

YOU FUCKWITS MAKE "kiwis" LOOKS LIKE THE STUPID
1/2 WIT PAAKEHAA YOU REALLY ARE.

[BR]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>

In other words, you don't know and neither does anybody else.

[Rich80105]

Exactly - we all know that we will die; we just don't know when, but
we can make intelligent plans relating to the event. In the case of
global warming, we may now not be able to stop changes already
happening, but we may be able to mitigate the worst damage.

[Tony]

Not by stopping or reducing farming, or refusing to use more efficient use of
fossil fuels and other ignored suggestions - mankind is responsible for a tiny
fraction of climate change. So removing that fraction will have a tiny effect
on our climate if any.

[Gordon]

Here is a thought, are we not sure that going carbon dioxide netural will
not be the the worst damage?

After all lockdowns were damaging.

What if the climate change is not man made then anything we do will not
change the course of the climate and any impositions will be in vein with
all the disadvantages applied for absolutely for no gain.

[Rich80105]

On 22 Feb 2024 01:12:43 GMT, Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

>On 2024-02-21, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 05:10:21 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:16:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:25:56 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:19:43 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:23:53 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 10:52:51 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 05:00:09 +1300, BR <bl...@blah.blah> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:54:14 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>>>>>><l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 07:08:37 +1300, BR wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What scientific evidence?
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>Well, you see, they have these things called ?thermometers?, etc.

Certainly worth bearing in mind, Gordon - what sort of damage did you
have in mind, or have the scientists suggested may be the result?

>
>After all lockdowns were damaging.

And also effective in saving lives. We have since discovered that New
Zealand was very fortunate to be sufficiently isolated to have
effective lockdowns linked with restrictions on cross border movement
- as it was some new variants still got across the border with some of
the necessary interactions in special circumstances such as import /
export activities. We were also fortunate that we were able to delay
vaccinations until we had seen results of what were new vaccines;
there was a race to develop an effective vaccine; I do not know how
many were not accepted before we agreed to use the various vaccines
that were eventually used.

But more generally, the lock-downs did change us - they changed our
willingness / desire to work from home, to embrace video conferencing,
to value family contact, and yes also to better understand and respond
to the bad effects of isolation, uncertainty, to irrational fears, and
to exploitation of those fears. we came through with 22,000 fewer
deaths than the equivalent number of deaths had we experienced the
Covid impact that the USA had, and also significantly fewer deaths per
thousand population than most other countries. We experienced a better
economic recover than most countries, and a lower level of job losses,
and a lower increase in government debt (we did increase debt, but our
net financial position was much less affected by other countries as we
gained significantly from our capital investment fund - the Cullen -
Robertson Fund established to soften the effect of demographic change
as baby-boomers left the workplace and became eligible for NZ
Superannuation.

>What if the climate change is not man made then anything we do will not
>change the course of the climate and any impositions will be in vein with
>all the disadvantages applied for absolutely for no gain.

We have elected a government that appears to have a lower commitment
to try to mitigate the effects of climate change for which there is
wide scientific consensus. Such a stance does carry additional risks
relating to financial costs under the agreements we entered into under
one of the Key governments, and potentially reputational risk which
could affect trade relationships; clearly the government believes
there are some offsetting rewards. They do however express a wish to
improve water quality, and that is likely to lead to some actions that
are consistent with Climate Change goals and commitments.

The new government is clearer with respect to Covid, which is of
course still active in our community - they appear to accept that
there will be an ongoing level of demand for medical services (both GP
and hospital) arising from Covid infection, and including long term
effects for many individuals, but they are continuing the policy
settings from the previous government; encouraging appropriate actions
where infection does occur, requiring vaccination for some critical
occupations, and providing free vaccinations at least until 30 June
this year.

[Tony]

That is a lie. There is growing significant scientific opinion that the
currently accepted political views are bullshit and not supported by scientific
evidence.
Why do you repeat lies and never learn when your ignorance is pointed out to
you?

> Such a stance does carry additional risks
>relating to financial costs under the agreements we entered into under
>one of the Key governments, and potentially reputational risk which
>could affect trade relationships; clearly the government believes
>there are some offsetting rewards. They do however express a wish to
>improve water quality, and that is likely to lead to some actions that
>are consistent with Climate Change goals and commitments.

There are no commitements that we have made that matter.

>
>The new government is clearer with respect to Covid, which is of
>course still active in our community - they appear to accept that
>there will be an ongoing level of demand for medical services (both GP
>and hospital) arising from Covid infection, and including long term
>effects for many individuals, but they are continuing the policy
>settings from the previous government; encouraging appropriate actions
>where infection does occur, requiring vaccination for some critical
>occupations, and providing free vaccinations at least until 30 June
>this year.

Irrelevant and off topic like the majority of your diatribe.

[BR]

On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 15:18:02 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>We have elected a government that appears to have a lower commitment
>to try to mitigate the effects of climate change for which there is
>wide scientific consensus.

Really?

Who was polled?