Best part is that it could have been made either by a warmist or by a denier.

Or maybe that’s the sad part!

no, R2, it’s in response to the Government’s 10% – 20% by 2020 target. Hence the “10-20% pure”.

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.

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.

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.

One tourist, interviewed about their experience here in 2004 had this to say:

We are told how green and wild New Zealand is, how fresh and un-polluted are the forests, yet everywhere we went in the top of the South Island we saw signs on the roadsides and in picnic
areas about 1080 poison, big skull and crossbones signs. It really made us afraid to let our children run free and enjoy your so called unsoiled landscape, I didn’t realise the home of Middle
Earth was out to poison its wildlife.

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

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.