A few days ago, Christopher Luxon announced the first part of National’s new Electrify NZ policy, explaining:
Electrify NZ will help double the amount of renewable energy available and put New Zealand on track to reach its climate change goals.
The Labour government’s Maorification agenda simultaneously shreds our freedom while the Net Zero agenda tears the heart out of our national treasury.
They are each in their own way both necessary and highly problematic. Maorification is necessary to gratify the iwi leaders’ lust for money; Net Zero is necessary to gratify the Green activists’ lust for total control.
Both crusades emerge from stone-cold totalitarian hearts.
Luxon’s plan on green energy and reduction of red tape around the RMA is a good start, but it leaves the basic climate fraud on the field instead of kicking it into touch. The fraud, of course, is the raucous, evidence-free hostility towards carbon dioxide emissions — which do good everywhere and do absolutely no harm. We need both campaigns to cease, but will it happen? How will we all vote?
Do your own climate study at home
Both National and Labour are listening only to activist scientists on climate and ignoring the thousands of well-credentialled, honourable scientists who recognise flaws and wilful blindness in IPCC assessment reports. Yet it’s not hard to inform ourselves. For example, here are a few websites showing scientific records of temperature and other elements of weather to get started:
- https://www.climate4you.com [under Key updates, click ALLinONE]
- https://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm#SeaIce%20NSIDC [graphs of sea ice coverage at both poles]
- https://www.drroyspencer.com [the UAH Global Temperature Update for the previous month]
- https://www.thegwpf.org [go to Projects | State of the climate]
- https://nsidc.org/home [National Snow and Ice Data Center, Univ. of Colorado; click Explore Sea Ice Data | Sea ice index | scroll down| click Sea Ice Index Daily and Monthly Image Viewer | click Visualize]
If you have any questions, let me know in the comments.
Michael Kelly’s latest study (pdf, 6.39 MB) of New Zealand’s Net Zero dreams I think also exposes Luxon’s scheme’s failure to mirror physical reality. Because he cites no amounts of electricity generation he aims to replace, I went looking for clues.
The Electrify NZ report says:
40% of New Zealand’s emissions come from transport and energy. Switching those sectors to clean electricity could deliver almost a third of the emissions reductions New Zealand needs to reach Net Zero by 2050.
That section alone mentions electrifying “large parts of the economy” (more than $40 billion by 2030) according to BCG 2022, for which NZ is “already short of the investment it needs by around 8,000 gigawatt-hours or nearly 20% of current electricity generation”, citing Concept Consulting (2022) in “Generation investment survey 2022,” a report for the Electricity Authority. This looks like a tortuous study for the electricity generation novice, but overall points to 2030 as an unattainable deadline.
This just scratches the surface. If you know more, please add to it in the comments or email me. I’d be terribly grateful. We all would.
Views: 170
The carbon con is designed to reduce carbon in all its forms, including us carbon based life forms, so stop breathing out co2 lol, honestly this is crazy stuff, carbon is 0.04 percent of the planets atmosphere, the sun is 100 times the size of the earth and controls our climate electrically, until basic science is once again taught at school level this propaganda campaign will continue to cause the young to worry about their future instead of getting on with their lives
Well said Rickshay, however the problem we have is the teachers are so brainwashed as well, they wouldn’t be able to teach basic science particularly the Carbon Cycle ! I recently attended my grandson’s primary school where they of course teach stuff about the environment etc and so I asked the teacher (who was around 30yrs old) if she knew about the Carbon cycle which of course she didn’t so that gives you an example of the quality of teachers here in NZ! I reminded her that without atmospheric CO2 crops / food etc cannot grow – so we die! She’d heard of photosynthesis but I don’t think she understood the process of converting CO2 / sunlight to food that the plants can use to grow!
Hi Rickoshay,
Have a look at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1mjG_F8ppw
I does appear that Steffensen has been “got at” by the establishment since this video and has had to wind things back a bit, presumably to keep his job, but it is a very telling video. Also, what few people seem to realise is that at the time these modern meteorological observations started, Krakatoa erupted in 1883, chucking an estimated 20 million tonnes of sulphur particulates in to the upper atmosphere and cooling global temperatures. There is a fair amount of disagreement as to the actual effects, but estimates vary from a global drop of 0.6 degrees C to as much as 1.2 degrees C and lasting for for up to 5 years. This makes sense if you look at NOAA’s historical temperature graph. At the end of the 19th century they have temperatures hovering around 13.4 to 13.7 c, give or take. Yet an analysis by Kramm et al of temperature records from the early 20th century, provided by meteorologists working at that time, such as Dove, Forbes, Ferrel, Spitaler and many more, would indicate a global surface temperature average of 14.4 c , as concluded by von Hann in his 1908 paper. This would be consistent with a temperature drop caused by Krakatoa and a very convenient starting point for global warming. Just as an aside, given the current lack of a warming trend for the last 9 years I am fully expecting the terminology to change from “climate change” to “climate variation”
Hi Rickoshay, that’s a great post, good points on the timing.
Hi Ross,
Also, interestingly, if you look at the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for mount Pinatubo.
“More recently, gases and ash from Mount Pinatubo, a volcano located on the island of Luzon in the Philippines, cooled the world’s climate by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) for a few years after the volcano erupted in 1991.” Try finding that in the NOAA or NASA temperature records. They have long been accused of data tampering, particularly with regard to deliberately cooling the 1930s, but it is glaringly obvious that they exclude anything that will upset the narrative.