Counter-Protest To Support St Heliers Development
ACT on Campus are taking to the streets in a counter-protest, occuring right now in St Heliers, to support property rights and to oppose the Environment Court's injunction against the new development on Turua Street.
"ACT on Campus support the property rights of all New Zealanders, including developers," says ACT on Campus President, Peter McCaffrey"
"Mike Markham, the owner of the Turua Street properties, has already suffered through more than five years of long delays while struggling through a minefield of bureaucracy and red-tape, including voluntarily delaying the demolition while the Mayor and Council looked at the issue."
"Property rights are a fundamental part of a modern liberal society and should be defended by the state, not attacked and restricted." says McCaffrey
"In the current economic climate, thousands of people are out of work or struggling just to get by. Development and progress creates jobs and wealth while regulations and restrictions will put even more people out of work."
"Just because one person likes the look of a house should not give them complete veto rights over something the owner of the property wishes to do. If the local community want to protect the houses, they should band together to purchase them from the developer rather than try to steal them through regulation and government force."
"The Environment Court should immediately withdraw its injunction, allow the development to proceed, and refocus its attention on real environmental issues affecting New Zealand." says ACT on Campus President, Peter McCaffrey.
No Pressure, It's Your Choice... BOOM!
What do you do if someone isn't reducing their carbon emissions? Blow them up, of course!
"“No Pressure” celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those are aren’t."
This is NOT a spoof. This is a REAL advert (including real football stars, for non-football fans). Absolutely DISGUSTING!
ETS Designs
Today there's a new feature on the ACT website that I designed about the ETS:
I preferred this design, but apparently it's a bit too gross for the homepage of the ACT website:
Feel free to spread either image around!
Malaria In Russia?
That section of the movie ended with an African woman telling some US environmentalists how unfair it was that the US had been able to use DDT to rid itself of Malaria, but then wanted to prevent African countries from doing the same. The environmentalists response was that Malaria had never existed in the US and they hadn't used DDT. The movie then cut to scenes of streets, houses, schools and swimming pools being sprayed with DDT in the US in the '20s and '30s.
The following video is slightly different, but along the same lines. During a debate over the recent ClimateGate issue, one interview talks about how the UN should be spending the money its collecting for Climate Change on combating things like Malaria in the third world. The interviewer jumps right in and claims that rising temperatures from Global Warming will cause more Malaria, and the second interviewee joins in, plainly stating: "Malaria never happened in Russia before, now it is."
The first interviewee calls the second on the ridiculousness of that claim, and his only response is to ask him if he's a Medical Doctor, and when he was last in Russia.
Although the entire video is worth watching, this exchange happens from 7:30 onwards.
By the way, I'm not a Medical Doctor and i've never been to Russia, but ten seconds on Google turned up this article from 1921 from the New York Times:
10,000,000 Malaria Cases In Russia
Know Thy Enemy
Here's a video created to brainwash educate the kids that I saw on The Standard.
It's a good watch to see just how the left don't understand think about these issues.
Let's start listing all the errors we find in the video:
1) We live in a finite world.
If only there were some giant ball of hydrogen somewhere outside the Earth, that burnt at thousands of degrees celcius and input energy into this closed-system finite world of ours.
Challenges
The Green Party has issued the government five challenges in its state of the planet address, calling for a Green "New Deal".
It wants National to buy the most fuel efficient cars for the government fleet, set standards for smart electricity meters, pledge to cut oil consumption by one quarter in the next ten years, and match public transport funding to road transport funding.
The Greens also want the government to reinstate the billion dollar Green Homes Fund, which co-leader Russel Norman says would have insulated houses, created jobs and cut power bills.
Will someone please tell the Greens that they lost the election?
Maybe if they hadn't ruled out working with National, they might have been able to negotiate some of this stuff in a confidence and supply agreement?
Conclusions
Scientists discover that 50 million years ago the seas around New Zealand used to be 30 degrees Celsius or more meaning that the scientific models that predicted temperatures of around 20 degrees were completely inaccurate.
So instead of concluding that:
a) There is something wrong with the climate models
b) We don't yet understand enough about the climate to model it
Their conclusion is:
a) There is something wrong with the climate models
b) Now we completely understand the models, global warming is much worse than we thought it was
Without wanting to criticise the scientists involved, let's take a look at some words extracted from the article:
If, could, may, likely, around, inferred, uncertain, similar, seems, likely, unknown, indicated, underestimated, possible, underestimating.
Oh, and any guesses who paid for the research?
The ETS Is Dunne
Peter Dunne has been appointed the chair of the ETS Select Committee.
Russel Norman seems to have got confused and is talking like Rodney:
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said he hoped Mr Dunne took his position of independence "really seriously because it's obviously very unusual to have a government minister in that position".
Dr Norman hoped Mr Dunne would take into account the science and as Revenue Minister consider the impacts of changes on taxpayers.
I completely agree Russel!