Lord Monckton interviews Greenpeace activist on global warming

This is a classic. From the streets of Copenhagen. Here's a sample:
MONCKTON: In the last 10 years, how much has the global temperature gone up?
ACTIVIST: 0.7 degrees.
MONCKTON: In the last 10 years?
ACTIVIST: No, not in the last 10 years but in 20…
MONCKTON: But I’m asking you about the last 10 years.
ACTIVIST: Uhm, well, I will just have to guess. I would say, uhm… 0.1 degree…
MONCKTON: Right. It has actually gone down very slightly. About 0.05 degrees. It has gone down for 10 years. In fact it hasn’t increased statistically significantly, for the last 15 years, out of the 20 years you were talking about.
ACTIVIST: May I ask you a question? How do you know that?
MONCKTON: Because I take the data from the satellite and I then plot what is called the least squared linear regression trend…

The Green religion

Mike Moore writes that a British judge has determined that employees can take their employers to court on the grounds that they were discriminated against because of their views on climate change. The judge ruled that an employee's green views should be protected under legislation that makes it unlawful to discriminate because of someone's religious beliefs.

Does that mean if your Green beliefs are based on a Christian religion, and you are successful in court, that you get double reparation because they have discriminated on two grounds? Even if God exists and climate change doesn't.

Greens should vote no on ETS

Well, I haven’t been following the ETS (bill here) as much as I’d like, but thanks to a very succinct report from Paula Oliver I know enough to call the Greens to vote no on Tuesday if it really wants to be in Parliament after the election. Greens may want to support imperfect policy now rather than worse ones under National, but if it was a principled party it would vote with its convictions instead of aslking the voters what they think. Chris Trotter quotes Edmund Burke:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

They didn't ask the opinion of voters when they voted on the anti-smacking legislation, did they.
Jeannette Fitzsimons says

What really mattered about this scheme was that is was fair to New Zealanders and effective at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Throughout the negotiation process we have kept this at the forefront of our minds. If we don’t get these things right, the huge wealth transfers that the ETS creates will be both unfair and ineffectual.

And if that’s the case, don’t vote for it, then. There are many more options than just waiting for National to pass its own scheme, and if the Greens are not in Parliament it will not be able to influence it or further its own policies.

National’s climate change policy is outlined here.