Let the Climate Denier Councils drown and burn!

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
24
11

Following the climate denial of the West Coast Regional Council, Thames-Coromandel mayor Sandra Goudie has refused to sign up to the declaration on climate change...

A push to get local authorities to sign up to a declaration on climate change is “politically charged and driven”, the Thames-Coromandel mayor says.

…if these climate deniers refuse point blank to sign up to the climate change declaration to help mitigate and adapt to the realities of climate change, I say we let them burn and drown!

NOT ONE CENT of Government aid should be spent on these fools, if these are the leaders the people elect, then it is on them when the next catastrophic climate event hits.

There are 23 climate denying local authorities that have refused to sign up to the declaration.

Let them burn.

Let them drown.

We should utterly refuse their screams for help when the shit hits the fan if they are this ignorant. If you live in these regions and they are your representatives, organise, activate and vote these fools out of office because their vulgar illiteracy will destroy you.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

24 COMMENTS

  1. Bet they will be quick up that way to put their hand out for government money when they have problems created by climate change but she was calling it erosion this morning and she was getting on my goat with her attitude

  2. Yes Sandra – keep flying your flag until you sink under the waves, then you will scream for help eh?

    My father did the perfect term for you;
    “There’s none so deaf as those who don’t want to hear”

    “A push to get local authorities to sign up to a declaration on climate change is “politically charged and driven”, the Thames-Coromandel mayor says”.

  3. Those who warned long ago have been proven right:


    ‘Broecker brought “global warming” into common use with a 1975 article that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming. He later became the first person to recognize what he called the Ocean Conveyor Belt, a global network of currents affecting everything from air temperature to rain patterns.
    “Wally was unique, brilliant and combative,” said Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer. “He wasn’t fooled by the cooling of the 1970s. He saw clearly the unprecedented warming now playing out and made his views clear, even when few were willing to listen.”

    “We live in a climate system that can jump abruptly from one state to another,” Broecker told the Associated Press in 1997. By dumping into the atmosphere huge amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, “we are conducting an experiment that could have devastating effects.”

    https://www.ajc.com/news/tech-science/scientist-who-popularized-term-global-warming-dies/EbAVMFNxumPzu5r4qRPZqK/?fbclid=IwAR3bqKdBlCZiscaCT6c67vJM44gfdIdKP-zOnvy7PZ05FqZngmvokagjqME

  4. Ex national party MP
    federated farmers local chair

    Both organisations work to delay any climate change action.

    Delay will cost us all more.

  6. They haven’t “denied” anything.

    They’ve just ask the warmists to prove it….and of course they can’t. 🙂

    • Yeah, right, Andrew. The facts that CO2 and temperatures are both rising – that doesn’t constitute proof for you. Or that we are having the warmest years on record. Or that Arctic, Greenland and much of Antarctic ice is melting.

      No, it’s not that. The evidence is there.

      You just aren’t prepared to look at it.

    • The trouble with you, Andrew, is you don’t believe in physics or chemistry or physical evidence or chemical evidence (except when it suits you perhaps, such as when you need and X-ray or some medication).

      As a non-believer in physical evidence or the foundational aspects of physics and chemistry, you have become a mouthpiece for absurdity.

      The evidence it beyond refute.

      C + O2 goes to CO2.

      That is irrefutable, unless you believe in the Four Elements theory of matter!

      The fact that CO2 absorbs and reradiates IR wavelengths was PROVEN by Tyndall in 1859. And the fact that atmospheric CO2 was rising was PROVEN just over a century later by Keeling (commencing 1958 and confirmed by 1962), confirming what, in 1896, the Swedish chemist Arrhenius suggested would happen.

      So here we are, with atmospheric CO2 absorbing and reradiating (some of it downwards) plus highly elevated CO2 (180 ppm above the 800,000-year average) providing a totally sound scientific basis for what we have been witnessing…melting ice, increased ocean heat, higher land temperatures and extreme weather events.

      Then there is the matter of increasing ocean acidification which climate change deniers assiduously avoid.

      However, it is clear your are ‘immune’ to scientific evidence.

      Needless to say, it will be those younger than us who will pay dearly for the obstruction to the establishment of sustainability that has characterized so-called civilised societies for decades.

    • Yep, EP, a ship of fools alright, and they well need that ship to sail off into the never-never. They could end up having to eat each other too – I gather that we taste like pork – unless dairying (surprise surprise) Goudie has the forethought to organise some other cows to travel along with them.

      They should be able to drink cow pee ok – the sun kills the bacteria – if the sun is shining correctly – and dry the turds for fuel – or they could maybe have turd fritters; veges would be a bit of a no-no, but the Nats never liked greens anyway; any fish left in the warming sea could already be slightly poached. They’ll be fine – as long as they don’t get their just desserts first – desserts traditionally rounding off specific sort of social occasions.

      I don’t know about the children though. I worry about the children.

  8. To my pseudo-objective rationale, all the actions that the right decry as ‘politicising’, such as climate change or calls for gun control in the US after mass shootings, etc, are patent Goebbels 101 propaganda tactics, ie accuse your opponents of what you’re doing yourselves.
    Imploring the better angels of our collective nature to take action to deal with critical issues is not an angle for political point scoring. I’m confident everyong promoting imperative climate change measures would be overjoyed if their political opponents crossed the floor thus rendering the issue bipartisan – nonpartisan even!
    Accusing your opponents of political point scoring instead of offering a coherent counter-argument to their assessment of the crisis is nothing at all besides hypocritical ad-hominem political point scoring.
    Moreover, if the right truly believe the only true threat of the climate change debate is the unwanted political gain of their opponents, wouldn’t the best way to nullify that be to take the same position? If only the 100 companies causing 71% of worldwide emissions that probably provide a similar percentage of their funding would agree.

  9. They believe the climate is changing…just not that its the result of mans activities.

    Which is fine by me really, it should simply serve as a reminder that we are all culpable and in some level of denial each and every day with the decisions we make as citizens and consumers.

Comments are closed.