Do we need more mining?

Last night The Vote asked if New Zealand needs more mining.

Here’s the answer:

Norway shows what mining can do for an economy without compromising the environment.

56 Responses to Do we need more mining?

  1. blokeinauckland says:

    Russel Norman was dangerously disingenuous on that programme. He was comparing job numbers between food production/tourism and mining. What he completely ignored is the food processing and more importantly tourism jobs are low paying; and especially when compared to mining jobs. There is little wealth creation in McJob’s in food production tourism. (quite apart from the issue NZ’ers won’t work on farms and we import labour anyway)

    The loon from Greenpeace conflated all mining with climate change. Her comment to the photos of the excellent job done at Waihi by Newmont to progressively rehabilitate land after mining was “but what about the destruction of the climate” – well it’s a gold mine……stupid is as stupid is.


  2. robertguyton says:

    The answer, Ele came from the studio audience, who voted against more mining in New Zealand, and the viewing audience, who voted against more mining in New Zealand.
    Perhaps you didn’t watch the programme or is it that you disregard the views of the public because they don’t match your own?
    New coal mines should not be dug, in my opinion, because coal out of the ground means coal burned and that means an acceleration of climate change. Russel Norman was correct in his statements. He’ll be great on the Farming Show and will sort Jamie out toot-sweet 🙂


  3. robertguyton says:

    And as for Garner’s bs argument that Russel et al are disqualified from commenting on the issues of coal mining and climate change because they drove or flew to the studio, what poppycock!
    If using oil rules you out of commenting negatively about new oil and coal extraction, so must oil use, by the likes of Garner and Kockshorn, rule them out from promoting it, given that they have conflict of interest, that is, they seek to benefit from the practice.
    Russel could have said to Garner, incredulously, “Did you expect me to walk here?” I hear that argument all the time. It’s infantile and shallow. Blokeinauckland, however, will feel that it’s rock-solid!


  4. Quintin Hogg says:

    Dig baby dig.

    Without mining we don’t have the steel to build our bicycles, cars, truck, buses and trains.

    Without mining, we don’t have the heavy earths that we find in our our phones, ipads, computers, catalytic converters in our prius’s.

    Without mining we don’t have ghastly wind turbines such as those that infest the manawatu landscape.

    Without mining we deny the aspirations of those in Africa, the growing middle classes in Asia, South America and eastern Europe.
    Without mining the west coast becomes an open air museum.
    With it the west coast will hum like Taranaki.

    The climate changes 24 hrs of every day. First it was global cooling in the ’70’s then it was global warming which mysteriously morphed into climate change when the temperature stopped going up.


  5. Paranormal says:

    Climate change needs to accelerate if it wants to show us its actually happening as you on the left suggest RG.

    There has been no global warming for 18 years, we’re in a low of the natural 26 year hurricane cycle, and even NASA is reporting that carbon in the atmosphere assists in cooling

    I must admit I couldn’t be bothered hanging around to see the number of people that voted but i suspect the self selecting audience, both in the studio and texts, would not be reflective of the wider community.

    Stopping environmentally well managed mining of quality coal in New Zealand for the fallacy of climate change only supports mining of low quality coal in lesser controlled environments. All to the detriment of the environment and humanity. What your mates Red Russel and the liars from Greenpeace are promoting is nuts.


  6. robertguyton says:

    Quintin Hogg – Homepaddock’s very own Tony Kockshorn!



  7. robertguyton says:

    Paranormal disputes the validity of the poll (’cause it doesn’t suit him, eh!), just as he disputes the message from the vast majority of the world’s climate scientists (doesn’t suit, into the ears go the fingers!)
    Why didn’t Ele know that the 2 polls strongly opposed mining and posted instead that Garner was right? Odd! Perhaps Garner himself, like Paranormal, can’t accept the numbers? Seems to be the case. Simon Bridges, on to close the programme, sufferd the same ideological blindness, but no surprise there. His cane’s white-as.


  8. Paranormal says:

    Merely pointing out RG that political shows are generally low rating shows only watched by political tragics – like us. Especially when I imagine the Greens would have wound up their pet protesters to vote. Certainly the studio audience was over represented with Greens.

    And you continue to spread the half truths about ‘majority of climate scientists’. For a start that’s a fallacy as we know from how the ‘majority’ were measured and secondly, consensus is politics, not science. But hey, facts have never stood in the way of a dopey green scaremonger.

    As always Greens relying on dodgy numbers – a self selecting poll already gerrymandered by Greens organisers. It’s the greens that aren’t listening. Keep up the lies, half truths and scaremongering. You’ll have limited time to enjoy it as the population are waking up to you.

    What irks me is the damage your political agenda is doing to genuine issues.


  9. robertguyton says:

    Pretending that the majority of climate scientists haven’t clearly described AGW is a laugh, paranormal. Using the ‘John Key I can find a scientist who doesn’t’ defense is a bit…sad, I feel.


  10. scrubone says:

    Stop pretending yourself. That’s not what he’s saying and you know it.


  11. blokeinauckland says:

    Science is not a matter of consensus. So what it if 90% of conflicted scientists agree with climate change. Asking for a different outcome from that group is the proverbial asking turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving line.

    Rutherford relied on careful experimentation, record and repeat to be sure he had split the atom. He did not seek a consensus through the Royal Society. He had hard evidence of his theory being proved that was endlessly repeatable.

    No models have predicted the current lack of warming for the last 18 years. It is agreed another gazillion tonnes of carbon has entered the atmosphere in that period yet, contrary to all the models, there has been no warming – where is the heat? Perhaps you have been hiding it in your mycorrhizae?

    The world is starting to see the anti-carbon emperors have no clothes and the scam is just a way of manipulating the population like ZPG was when I was at Uni in the 70’s. Same folks different schtick same objectives.

    Norman was careful to quote the IEA as his new favourite agency given his past favourite IPCC has been hopelessly discredited.


  12. robertguyton says:

    So what if 90% of scientists agree with AGW?

    So what?????

    Good God. We have a goose here.


  13. homepaddock says:

    Robert, I did watch the programme.

    The poll isn’t scientific.


  14. TraceyS says:

    It’s a useless statistic Robert, face it. It does not say the degree to which they agree.


  15. Armchair Critic says:

    Duncan Garner’s opinion on the matter is not scientific, nor is it from an informed background. Yet you published it, and omitted the polls. Funny that. I’m sure they are less flagrantly biased in #gigatownpor


  16. Viv K says:

    97% of peer-reviewed papers taking a position on global warming say humans are causing it, as reported in a survey of 12,000 abstracts from peer-reviewed scientific publications from 1991 and 2011. As published in the journal Environmental Research Letters this year.


  17. TraceyS says:

    And right there in your first sentence you provide all the insight needed that this is political! “97% of peer-reviewed papers taking a position…”

    “a position”.

    Give me results, findings, conclusions, theories, hypotheses, but a “position”? The taking of positions has little to do with science. Political science maybe…


  18. robertguyton says:

    You cited The Vote then dismissed the answer from the programme and inserted your own (or at least Garner’s post-programme pabulum.)


  19. robertguyton says:

    Wildly in denial and dancing on the head of that ol’ pin, Tracey.
    AGW – the majority of climate scientists are warning us that we are in trouble. Meanwhile, in Ele’n’Tracey Land, denial’s de rigueur.


  20. TraceyS says:

    So not true Robert! I do not take a position on climate change. That is essential for keeping an open mind about things and being receptive to new and contradictory information. Call me strange, but I enjoy this way of being.

    I was interested in climate change long, long before it became a political topic. In my view it was disastrous when that happened because it doesn’t help us understand what reality is. When scientists start taking up positions (as Viv says they have) then we have a big problem. The knowledge will not grow as it should because positions have to be defended!

    However, I am sure that real scientists don’t take positions on climate change. I mean they might personally, but do they in their peer reviewed papers? I’d like to see evidence of that. I’m sure the peers would have something to say…


  21. Viv K says:

    Scientific abstracts summarise the paper, including the conclusions. Scientific position, not political position! This was a meta analysis of 12,000 scientific papers, not political statements. What happened to you refraining from commenting on subjects you don’t know about?


  22. Viv K says:

    Go look at the 12,000 peer reviewed papers yourself thenTracey and get back to us when you have read what the climate scientists have discovered about global warming.


  23. Viv K says:

    That comment was in reply to Tracey.


  24. robertguyton says:

    “I do not take a position on climate change”
    Climate change is something you need to take a position on, Tracey, it’s irresponsible not to.
    “Grandmother – what was your position on climate change?”
    “Well, grandaughter – I didn’t take one”
    *appalled silence

    Your claim about scientists “not taking a position” is rubbish. Scientists who have determined that AGM is a real threat to humanity “take a position” alright. They’d have to be fools not to.
    Does a scientist who discovers the existence of a new, lethal virus in, say, a new food product, not say ‘THIS IS DANGEROUS AND CAN KILL YOU’, or does that scientist say, I do not take a position on this”.


  25. robertguyton says:

    Did you, Ele? How did the results to the question asked by the programme makers go? Did the pro-mining team win? Did they?
    Simon Bridges acted as though they did. You are acting as though they did. What really happened?


  26. TraceyS says:

    Perhaps YOU could provide some references to scientific, peer-reviewed papers published in reputable scientific journals where the authors take a position, rather than report their findings and conclusions? Robert doesn’t see the distinction and calls it “dancing on the head of a pin” but those comments only prove to show that his mind is indeed not open and receptive. He has taken a position and cannot learn from new information which disagrees with that position.

    I am happy to be proved wrong, Viv. More than happy. In fact I look forward to following up your references because I am keen to understand more.


  27. TraceyS says:

    No he wouldn’t take a position on it. He wouldn’t need to. He’d have irrefutable evidence, Robert. If he didn’t have it, he wouldn’t draw the conclusion.

    Yours is a layperson’s understanding of causation. Proving causation scientifically is much different to our every-day interpretation of cause and effect.

    Agreeing that something is (or could become) a threat is not a position. But saying humans cause harmful climate change is a position, most definitely.


  28. Viv K says:

    I wonder if Tracey has a ‘position’ on children smoking cigarettes, maybe she has an open mind on that too?


  29. TraceyS says:

    No need to have a position on it. See comment above.


  30. TraceyS says:

    People who have a position on everything can get to being annoying.


  31. Viv K says:

    There is a huge amount of scientific information out there. I’d like to refer you to the Australian Climate Commission’s 2011 report “The Critical decade” as it has references to many actual climate science studies. Unfortunately since Tony Abbott shut down the Climate commission, the links I had to that report (which I have as a pdf) don’t work.

    I’ll refer you to instead

    where you can follow links to hundreds of scientific peer reviewed papers.

    the site is described thus “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary. The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.


  32. TraceyS says:

    I see data, opinion, links to websites etc, but where are the peer-reviewed scientific articles in which researchers take a “position” on climate change? Just one will do. I couldn’t find the list – maybe I wasn’t looking in the right place?


  33. Dave Kennedy says:

    Here are two people talking about their concerns regarding climate change:

    Here is the most recognised climate change sceptic/talking about climate change:

    I know who I think is most credible.

    If 98% of medical science supported the fact that I had cancer and a charismatic person with a doubtful background said there is nothing to worry about and don’t accept the majority view or follow the recommended treatment, aren’t we talking about a Milan Brych scenario?


  34. Viv K says:

    Tracey you have pounced on the word ‘position’, which was a word used to describe those abstracts that discussed a link between human activity and global warming, of which 97% found such a link. Now I’ve used the word link and perhaps you’ll leap on that word and demand it be defined and insist I provide you with ‘just one’ reference which meets you requirements showing a ‘link’. I’m sorry if the online link to a website run by climate scientists, who do not state a political opinion (which was your original objection to my use of the word position) does not suit you.


  35. robertguyton says:


    Tracey to a ‘t’ (as in “Tigger”)


  36. TraceyS says:

    I have no desire to pounce on the word “link”. Its meaning is quite different to “position”. You should really take more care to write what you mean Viv.

    On to the 97% of scientists who agree there is a *LINK* between human activity and climate change. Large numbers of scientists also thought that the discovery of the Bosun Higgs or so-called “God Particle” was going to be profound when it finally happened. I believe that has now been achieved and has anything astounding happened as a result?

    I can tell you one thing that has changed is that they (scientists) don’t appear to talk it up quite so much now.

    Even if the 97% of scientists are right about there being a “link” between human activity and climate change, and I am prepared to accept they are, it does not necessarily follow that this is profoundly important or even particularly relevant to the future of life on earth.


  37. Viv K says:

    I do take care to write what I mean Tracey. You just choose to deliberately miscontrue my meaning and pick out certain words and run off on tangents. I have come to recognise it as your style. Sometimes it’s fun, one never knows which few words in a comment you’ll choose to pick apart and twist the meaning of.


  38. TraceyS says:

    No deliberate misconstruing Viv, just taking you literally.


  39. robertguyton says:

    “…it does not necessarily follow that this is profoundly important or even particularly relevant to the future of life on earth.”
    So, Tracey. Do you beelieve that the situation being described by the vaqst majority of climate scientists isn’t profoundly important and isn’t particularly relevant to the future of life on earth?


  40. Viv K says:

    If we take her literally it looks like it. It’s difficult to reconcile that comment with Tracey’s previous claims that she is not a denier of AGW. If someone says that the situation described by climate scientists isn’t important or relevant, thats not being ‘open minded’, that’s denial that fossil fuel emissions are causing a problem.


  41. robertguyton says:

    She certainly is in denial but seems determined to obscure the bald fact be prevaricating and quibbling bout the meanings of certain words.
    Come clean, Tracey. Own your denial.


  42. TraceyS says:

    Sorry, no can do Robert and Viv. I’m not a “denier” as you say.

    What you, Robert, call “dancing on the head of a pin” and you, Viv, call “pick[ing] apart” is just a strong interest in the process of how knowledge evolves and is used by people.

    If that annoys you, too bad.


  43. robertguyton says:

    Yeah, Tracey, whatever.


  44. Cadwallader says:

    To quote Carl Sagan: “Science is the skeptical interrogation of the universe.” It is not a block of settled knowledge nor can it ever be.The facts re man-made climate change include that there has been no appreciable change for 18 years at least.


  45. Viv K says:

    It is a scientific fact that when there is more heat in a system there is more energy in the system. The ‘super typhoon’ in the Philippines is killing people now. As the oceans warm the intensity of hurricanes increases, that’s physics, but the scientifically uneducated here will try and deny that too I suppose.


  46. robertguyton says:

    “Super typhoon”, Viv?

    Just put your fingers in your ears. You won’t hear a thing.


  47. TraceyS says:

    “The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event such as Hurricane Katrina is due to global warming. ” (

    “Hurricane activity in the Atlantic may not increase as a result of global warming, according to a new study focusing on changes in tropical wind patterns. The findings appear to contradict a number of recent studies linking warming waters in the region to an increase in hurricane intensity and frequency. The new study suggests that increases in vertical wind sheer…could counter-balance the affects of warming waters.” (

    I think it may be too soon to say what the causes of the ‘super typhoon’ are. Can you provide a reference to something scientific that explains this particular event? You have a poor track record in producing links to actual studies to back up your assertions, Viv. Maybe you’ll take this opportunity.


  48. TraceyS says:

    Do you do this often Robert? I’m sensing you do. Come clean now, how many times each day?


  49. Viv K says:

    That an increase in heat increases the energy in weather systems (such as hurricanes) is a scientific fact not an ‘assertion’. I made no comment on causation or frequency of storms.


  50. JC says:

    Click to access 2012.04.pdf

    Based on studies going back to 1944 there is no overall trend of tropical cyclones being more frequent or worse and the US has established a milestone of least number of significant cyclones making landfall since 2005.

    However, this current storm is a bastard, maybe the biggest in modern times.. pity the poor buggers who are in it’s way.



  51. robertguyton says:

    Biggest in modern times?
    Fingers safely inserted, Tracey?


  52. JC says:

    “Weather officials said Haiyan had sustained winds of 235 kph with gusts of 275 kph when it made landfall. By those measurements, Haiyan would be comparable to a strong Category 4 hurricane in the U.S., nearly in the top category, a 5.”

    Now, you blathering jackass of much noise, insult and lowest value, go away and peddle your fact free tripe of ignorance, avoidance of science, observation, data collection and real time reporting to your low information base.



  53. robertguyton says:

    How rapidly you Homepaddock-righties descend into personal abuse when your arguments are shown to be facile.
    Any chance of an answer to my 7:49pm question, Tracey?
    Too awkward?


  54. jabba says:

    OMG .. bOb, you are the rudest person “I know” so the accuse someone of “How rapidly you Homepaddock-righties descend into personal abuse when your arguments are shown to be facile” is a joke


  55. JC says:

    “How rapidly you Homepaddock-righties descend into personal abuse when your arguments are shown to be facile.”

    But you haven’t provided any scientific evidence to support your insults.. your inevitable response to peer reviewed evidence provided is insult and denigration.

    Go away braying donkey.. back to your fetid green swamp where insults, corruption and anti science are the currency of the day.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: