Not a good look for a tourism minister who happens to be Prime Minister. An even worse look for a country where tourism is 18% of export earnings.
[H/T – The Standard]
29 thoughts on “A little bad marketing for the weekend…”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I actually assumed this was a reference to mining. In any case, some of that was quite out of date (‘hoax’ etc), and personally it just *grates* me when people use the language of ‘believing’ in global warming, but that’s just me.
Yes it is an insightful question, “Do you believe in global warming?”
Only absolute belief is acceptable from a politician. Any objectiveness is jumped on by the red-greens. Any wavering from the orthodox liberal belief (faith) is paramount to a leader in years gone by expressing doubt in the belief of a higher being.
Surveys have shown widespread scepticism in the general public, the parliament is designed to be representitive of the people – it should be EXPECTED that many of our representatives on both sides of the isle also waver from the modern religious belief in the sacredness of all things deemed environmental. That is not acceptable to the red-greens, they demand politicians fear to speak their minds. When politicians do speak their minds, this is the reaction – persecution by media.
So yes people, it is an interesting question, and I leave it open to readers, do you believe in global warming?
My answer would be: yes, on a small timescale, although I do not claim to understand what has caused it or what will happen in the future.
It might not have been so bad, had Key not made statements later denying the earlier stance. It makes him either seriously cognitively dissonant or a liar and he deserves to be called on it.
“Surveys have shown widespread scepticism in the general public, the parliament is designed to be representitive of the people – it should be EXPECTED that many of our representatives on both sides of the isle also waver from the modern religious belief in the sacredness of all things deemed environmental…. Blah Blah Blah”
Of course public opinion is the best way to conduct science. If the public say its so, then that is it!!
R2 this is not a matter of public opinion. Its a matter of verifiable science. And yes you have been directed to the verification innumerable times here. And so should our “LEADERS”. Parliament is a House of Representatives – and if their representation is one of shaky knowledge and flaky understanding of the issues then we should all be concerned.
You miss the point, this spoof is in response to two national MP’s admitting they are sceptical about AGW.
The parliament should represent public opinion. That is why I find it unexceptional that some members of parliament are sceptical. I find the media prosecution disgusting.
Let me give you an example you may be able to understand. The nation has a split opinion on the smacking debate. Parliament is not unified under what academics tell them to think, they also have a split opinion. This is what one should expect.
R2, That matter in your last is overwhelmingly an ethical matter*. ‘The science’ re: AGW is not an ethical matter, it is a technical one, therefore IMHO an elitist/expert approach is required. Ethics only becomes drawn into the matter when deciding to what extent action is taken.
* Yes, studies do get thrown about, but i’m not sure too many people care.
As usual, R2, it is you who is missing the point. MPs cannot simply ignore official advice just because it conflicts with their personal beliefs. The official advice from NIWA is that AGW is real, serious and we need to do something about it.
As an example, imagine that the finance minister held a personal belief that the top tax rate should be 100% starting at $100k. The official advice from Treasury would be that this would be disastrous for the economy. Do you think the finance minister would be justified in ignoring the official advice and implementing his personal belief? No, in fact you would be one of the first baying for his blood.
Thats a ridiculous example that does not prove anything.
Read over the following link:
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/process
A budget could only impose such a tax rate if it had the support of 50% of the house and the governor general. The parliament should represent the people so the law should only pass if it had the support. If the governor general felt the house was at odds with the nation he could also veto the bill.
Also, you are attacking a straw-man. I only said that all views should be represented.
– I do not agree that the top tax rate should be 100%
– Some people in the country probably do, or close to 100%
– It is quite possible some people in Parliament think this also
– I do not hold them up and say they should be leaders etc and listen to the economic experts. They are free to think what they want, and so are the people in the nation who vote for them
There is of course an issue of ‘tyranny of the majority’ in your example that can always exist in democratic nations. Most people in New Zealand would not be able to explain the difference between a democracy and a republic, and this is a sad thing. But thats another topic….
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3388
And why are those rules in place? So that ideology cannot introduce harmful changes to the tax system.
And yet you think that MPs ideology over climate change should be allowed to sway public policy in spite of the official advice?
We are being held hostage by a few right-wing nutters who refuse to listen to science, and you think that’s a good thing.
“I only said that all views should be represented.”
But there is only one scientific view, and that is what counts. People who don’t “believe” in AGW are irrelevant, and their voices should not count for anything.
“Let me give you an example you may be able to understand. The nation has a split opinion on the smacking debate. ”
Actually I was going to raise that issue too – but then considered it to be completely off topic. Firstly – that referendum was very unclear – the result could have been foreseen by a blind poodle – and secondly it had little to do with the actual amendment of S59 of the Crimes Act, which was to do with the removal of the defence of “parental discipline” in a charge of assault against a child. And where specific Guidelines have been given to the Police in order to implement the resulting law change.
Here is a clear example of where our Representatives have got it right and made a clear decision – and also bearing in mind that less than half of all of voters (<47%) (for what ever reason) voted 'No'.
But in the case of Global Warming – the science is clear – despite all your protestations to the contrary. These senior MP's should KNOW the science. It isn't all that difficult. And they either don't – or choose not to. Or are duplicitous in their statements.
I was going to reply along similar lines! but for some reason the comment was lost in the ether.
Actually I was going to use the example of the S59 amendment Referendum as an Example where the House appears to have got it right! – despite “apparent” public opinion to the contrary. In fact less than half (around 46% ) of voters voted “No” to a very ambiguous question. The true state of public opinion as to whether “parental discipline” is a defence in a criminal charge of assault against a minor has not been tested, but I would suspect that an entirely different result would occur.
But in the case of AGW the science is clear – despite R2 protestations. Senior MPs should be informed on issues if nothing else. And it appears that in this case they aren’t.
The official advice from NIWA is that AGW is real, serious and we need to do something about it.
“We” as in NZ, or we as in the world? From a science point of view, i’m not sure how they’d justify the former – more of a politcal-economic issue.
Are you saying that NZ is not part of the world? NZ will feel the effects of (uncontrolled) climate change just as much as the rest of the world, so how would it make sense for NZ to do nothing?
…so how would it make sense for NZ to do nothing?
If no one else did anything.
In which case we would need to do a lot of adapting – to make survival possible. Not trivial.
Except everyone else is doing something.
In which case we would need to do a lot of adapting – to make survival possible. Not trivial.
Yep so if those others could hurry up that’d be grand.
Except everyone else is doing something.
To some extent. In any case, this is where the political and economic issues come into it – much stronger cases for action arise from these than ‘the science’ for us.
We should celebrate how both our major parties have a long-standing , united position on this issue.
Credit where it’s due….that is actually quite funny.
Best part is that it could have been made either by a warmist or by a denier.
Or maybe that’s the sad part!
If we didn’t have an equally useless Git for our own PM I’d be inclined to say say something disparaging … sigh 🙁
Did you see 3 News tonight? Two Canterbury supermarket chains have ditched charging for plastic bags due to a “consumer backlash”. The “green consumer” is proving a mythological little beastie, eh?
1) Cadbury
2) Wot’s this got to do with climate change?
“1) Cadbury”
That was a good example of Greens claiming victory where the issue had nothing to do with environmental concerns. People stopped eating it cause it tasted different and Whittaker’s increased store presence. I myself started buying Whittakers a few months back and it had nothing to do with orang-utans. A lot of other people I know did a similar thing and are now a bit p’d off they are being held up as green consumers.
Right, which is why they decided to get Fair Trade certification right after that. I suppose that’s also nothing to do with feedback from good rapport with customers over a green social movement, everything to do with simple satisfaction of the senses, right?
This whole “100 percent pure” garbage has always irritated me. The “only” reason we have not degraded our environment as much as other countries in the world is due to our isolation (lower immigration) and consequent small population. Hardly something to brag about.
Hey, don’t belittle New Zealanders’ efforts in the environmental degradation stakes. After all, we have gotten rid of 73% of the original forest cover, decimated the indigenous wildlife by introducing rats, mustelids, cats and possums, introduced over 300 plants that have a detrimental effect on local ecosystems, and polluted many of our streams, rivers and lakes with excess nutrient runoff from farms.
One tourist, interviewed about their experience here in 2004 had this to say:
That was a good example of Greens claiming victory where the issue had nothing to do with environmental concerns. People stopped eating it cause it tasted different
I would guess you mean greens, not Greens.
People stopped eating it cause it tasted different
News to me! I would’ve thought that Cadbury taste tested it first, successfully, but maybe they didn’t think it was important? One could cynically say that they backed up privately because of the taste but publically because of the ‘green’ aspect to look better, but I don’t see any reason to think so.
You miss the point, this spoof is in response to two national MP’s admitting they are sceptical about AGW.
no, R2, it’s in response to the Government’s 10% – 20% by 2020 target. Hence the “10-20% pure”.