Stuff readers disagree with Stuff stance

He is not really Hitler of course (we apologise for the left-wing-style label), but you get the joke, don’t you Stuff?

As has been well publicised here, here, herehere, here, here and here the Stuff and Nonsense editorial team led by Patrick Crewdson have decided that they know best, they are right and anybody who does not agree with them is banned from saying so.  (Isn’t freedom of speech a wonderful thing?)

Stuff and Nonsense have bought into the lie that ?the science is settled?, anthropomorphic global warming is a thing, CO2 is evil and the IPCC is the source of all truth.

However, in a surprising opinion piece, Damien Grant ventured to suggest that the Greens may be heading in the wrong direction.  He cleverly got this piece past the Stuff and Nonsense censors by stating. ?It leaves people like me, who believe in anthropomorphic [sic] global warming …?, thus making him an acceptable ?good guy?.

However, Damien went on to lambaste the Greens’ approach and policy. Quote.

Shaw and his comrades have a vision of a different economic model, one that sane people have tunnelled under barbed wire fences to escape. Alas, the sacrifice required to achieve this gender-fluid post-colonial paradise requires a reversal of most of the economic gains of the last 50 years.

It requires direct or indirect state control of the means of production, intrusive regulation and ultimately a vastly reduced living standard. Giving up air conditioning to achieve gender and racial equality is a tough sell. Thankfully the threat of mass extinctions and the disappearance of the Maldives is a more compelling argument.

The production of carbon, from the methane produced from cows through to the human by-product of a good curry, is endemic. Changing the economy to reduce this will require a brutal re-alignment of industry, not merely a bit of tinkering with grass types for the dairy industry.

Now. There are some sacrifices I may be willing to make to reduce the risk of a three degree rise in global temperature but I am not going to sacrifice a can of baked beans to advance a political agenda I find repugnant.

It seems to me that Shaw and his ilk wants to use the economic and social engineering required to reduce carbon emissions to also achieve their other political aspirations.

This is a mistake.

It leaves people like me, who believe in anthropomorphic global warming, unwilling to support the changes necessary to reduce carbon emissions.

If the Greens want us to support their environmental agenda they need to de-link it from their socialist one. End quote.

You have it in a nutshell, Damien. It was never about the environment. It was always about politics and the socialist world outcome.

Although Damien’s article is great, it was the comments section that intrigued.

Stuff and Nonsense have shut down all comments about climate change that do not follow their approved group-think, but people were allowed to comment on this ?political? article, and they managed some barbed digs at the Greens and their environmental credentials. Quote.

The sum of it is that the Greens are the worst possible group in NZ if we want any progress on our emmissions. [sic] They firstly, don’t have a clue what they are doing, don’t have a decent understanding of basic science, and their intentions are 100% about controlling people, and 0% about wanting to improve the environment. If you vote greens, you’re extremely naive. End quote. Quote.

That?s the problem with the Green agenda. They can?t ?de-link? it from their socialist agenda. That is their agenda. You are seeing the true colours of their agenda. The world has shifted completely towards accepting this nonsense that they get to promote this. People, wake up, smell the vodka, and watch for the rise of the hammer a sickle. The so called ?global warming/climate change agenda is about controlling industry and not protecting the environment.End quote. Quote.

Finally someone prepared to print the truth. Well done.End quote. Quote.

You have nailed it. This climate change is a Trojan horse for more state control and lower living standards. In the third world it will reduce the ability to lift people out of poverty and some will literally starve to death.

If we were really serious about reducing emissions the price of fossil fuels would have to rise significantly. Remember when fuel was $2.50 a liter [sic] recently and there was a lot of squealing.? It would need to be a lot higher than that to impact demand. The recent French experience gives us a clue as to what might happen.

Alternatives? More hydro? Greens don’t want that. Nuclear? Nope. Renewables? Maybe but still very expensive and you need batteries which are not exactly environmentally friendly.

When people like James Shaw use words like environmental transformation it’s code for “the government is going to run your life”. End quote.

Obviously, there were those in the Stuff and Nonsense camp who disagreed with comments such as those above and attempted to swing the argument back. Quote.

NZ will be a better place when all the milking sheds have been torn down and we have tofu burgers for xmas lunch.End quote. Quote.

The tragedy is that this issue runs along party lines. Reality is that we all burn too much carbon sustaining our consumer and auto based lifestyle. And unless we address that on an individual voluntary basis nothing will change.End quote. Quote.

You do realise that the planet is dying, that our civilisation now has an expiry date if we don’t fundamentally change the way we live. We have to look at a paradigm shift in way humanity exists on this world if we are to have a chance. […] End quote.

And so on.

The interesting thing about the comments was not so much the comments themselves but the voting thereon. There were two distinct classes of comments.  One lot was broadly ?left? and the other broadly ?right?.  Those (left) who agreed with the Greens’ environmental and/or economic stance and those (right) who disagreed and/or made comments to the effect that CO2 was not evil and the global warming/climate change machine was a scam. There were 57 comments; 24, or 42%, ?left? and 33, or 58%, ?right?.

So the votes were cast.  Every ?left? comment had a minus score (more thumbs-down votes for that comment than thumbs-up); every ?right? comment had a plus score (more thumbs-up votes than thumbs-down).

Because up and down votes for each comment cancel, it is only the net result that shows.  The total votes cast is unknown.  Adding all the net results gave a total of 4533. Okay, so this is not a scientific survey or a properly conducted poll but people had to physically act on their beliefs to vote thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

The net thumbs-down for ?left? comments was -1692. The net thumbs-up for ?right? comments was 2841 or 63% of the total net result of votes cast.

It is clear that Stuff readers/voters do not overwhelmingly buy the Stuff and Nonsense editorial nonsense.

Stuff and Nonsense are going to have to get a lot smarter with their suppression techniques.

48%
×