So what is Labour’s policy on oil and drilling?

July 22nd, 2013 at 1:24 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

Controversial Labour Party bigwig has moved to position the party well clear of the Greens and their “anti-development” message.

In Taranaki for a two-day visit with party justice spokesman list MP Andrew Little, the regional development spokesman spent much of the first day pow-wowing with oil and gas industry players.

“I am keen to defang these misapprehensions that are abounding that somehow industry has disappeared from our purview.

“Nothing could be further from the truth and if my visit provides the opportunity to reinforce the centrality of jobs, the importance of industry and the need for a future Labour-led government to assuage whatever anxieties might be there in the minds of employers or future investors then I am up for the task,” he said.

Offshore oil and gas drilling was an essential feature of domestic and export growth, Mr Jones said, and businesses and enterprises enabling it would get full government support.

Shane may say this, and believe this, bus his caucus doesn’t. They’ve voted with the Greens on pretty much every law around drilling and off-shore oil.

They send Shane into Taranaki to say Labour supports off-shore drilling, and Moana Mackey into Gisborne to say they’re against it.

UPDATE: Further proof of Labour saying one thing in Taranaki and another thing elsewhere. Last year Grant Robertson was campaigning against oil prospecting.

Tags: ,

53 Responses to “So what is Labour’s policy on oil and drilling?”

  1. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Labour’s policy on oil and drilling will be exactly what the Greens tell them it is.

    Just as it was for NZ Power.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Reid (15,493 comments) says:

    Perhaps Shane was thinking about another kind of drilling when he said he was in favour of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (6,462 comments) says:

    “Shane may say this, and believe this, bus his caucus doesn’t.”

    That is right. Talk is cheap and I wouldn’t trust this wanker as far as I could kick his jerk off arse.

    Anyone who wants to drill an on-shore oil well is beleaguered by scores of approvals and the whining of silly little local watermelons who are mostly motivated by how much money the oil companies will pay them to go away.

    These whiners are accompanied by the brown mafia, who have delayed and obstructed many a drilling project even when so many of their brethren are rig workers.

    National have done some work on the issue but not nearly enough, and are unlikely to when they might need the Maori party as coalition partner.

    And the idiots at Transparency International keep giving NZ a low corruption rating. Just utter bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,662 comments) says:

    I think you’re all wrong.

    Shane Jones is intelligent enough to have seen what’s happened in Australia and he is positioning himself for a great lurch to the right sometime well before 2017, by which time the current rabble will have destroyed themselves. Cunliffe and Jones will be the only ones left standing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Auberon (816 comments) says:

    I’m most interested in Shane travelling with Andrew Little. I think it was Little who told Paddy Gower that Shearer had 60 days to perform. And I suspect Shane is positioning himself as Andrew’s deputy.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (8,987 comments) says:

    Labour’s other faction bypassing all the head office sh!t and doing their own campaigning??

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Auberon (816 comments) says:

    That’s right RRM.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Reid (15,493 comments) says:

    If you check out Andrew’s shirt he appears to aiming for the gay vote, anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Redbaiter (6,462 comments) says:

    Little is OK, and in my humble opinion about all that Labour has going for it, (and that’s not saying much) but he must be blind if he thinks an alliance with Shane Jones will help him.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Pete George (21,789 comments) says:

    Details of differences between Jones and Mackey: Fracking fractured in Labour

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (8,987 comments) says:

    but he must be blind if he thinks an alliance with Shane Jones will help him.

    Or he soon will be blind…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (3,261 comments) says:

    Why send Shan\e Jones to Taranaki ?

    1. He is an educated man. Well, so it seems except that is to Keynesian standards as opposed to Friedman.

    2. Labour is “broke”. If they are to have any chance in 2014 they need dollars, and they need to match National’s contributions from industry and manufacturers.

    3. Nothing labour has said or done in the past 18 months has endeared them to industry giants.

    4. Take the Todd family. For years they have given pare pasou to National and Labour. They also gave to the greens in 2011..

    5. I do not know how the Todds (who these days are pretty ,much the bench mark) are thinking. But I do know John Todd. I doubt what Shane has said will have impressed. He will regard it as a start, to be matched by deeds.

    Tough!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Pete George (21,789 comments) says:

    Shane Jones is working hard on it:

    The Labour Party is out to get those in Northland and the East Coast on board the mining, oil and gas bandwagon.

    Its regional development spokesperson, Shane Jones, is meeting with industry experts, iwi, local councils, farmers and environmental groups, in his push to promote the role these industries play in bolstering the economy.

    He aims to mend the damage he claims was caused by the Government in failing to put in the footwork for Brazilian company Petrobras to operate with the community’s support off the East Cape. “A lot of alarm, polarisation, fear got out of control and there’s an enormous amount of work to be done there before momentum can be recovered.”

    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/auckland/news/978322059-labour-trying-to-restart-mining-bandwagon

    Will he aim to mend the damage done by Mackey?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (5,674 comments) says:

    Former Vice President Exxon Mobil warns of fracking.
    Old mans wisdom
    http://truth-out.org/news/item/17605-former-mobil-vp-warns-of-fracking-and-climate-change

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. emmess (1,330 comments) says:

    I think can explain the strange leftist mindset

    It was like on Campbell Live last week
    One night, they had report moaning about the ferries to Picton possibly being moved away.
    And a couple of nights later a story celebration the Milford Dart bus tunnel not being approved.

    I think I know which is more environmentally damaging but the difference is one already exists.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. flipper (3,261 comments) says:

    hj…

    re Exxon’s former VP….

    I do not do links. They are for those unable to argue without resort to such diversions. They believe that the more they quote references to others ( no matter how relevant or “respected”), the stronger their views. Crap!.

    Read the man ( I have not), hj et al. Assimilate it (whatever it is), and tell us what you think he says.

    But beware. Such a path requires honesty of purpose. I make no accusation. But I come back to the fact that “linkers” are bull shitters (except where they quote for Info purposes).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Kleva Kiwi (267 comments) says:

    Its because they don’t have one.
    Labour is just a dog chasing its own tail. Round and round in circles.
    Its not until someone waves a bone around and throws it until they go off track again (normally Winston Peters)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (3,523 comments) says:

    But I come back to the fact that “linkers” are bull shitters

    And you know all about secret squirrel shit and you know rich people – right…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. flipper (3,261 comments) says:

    cha..
    Not worthy of a response, arsehole, except to say that some folks, a few, have real life experience to match their words.
    I do.
    Good bye.
    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. burt (7,083 comments) says:

    Classic Labour policy – what do you want us to say …. what will make you vote for us ????

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    flippy.
    Thats why you are considered a retard. remember the R.C.E. Wyndham bullshit you were posting. :lol: flipper (1,944) Says:
    May 6th, 2013 at 8:54 am .

    What a dick you are

    you do copy and paste and try to pass it as your own work. We can tell because you are such a moron it sticks out when you use someone else’s words :lol:
    cha is right
    flips the retarded fucknuckle

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    the only reason oil is drilled is to supply demand from consumers. Anybody who uses the products of oil, but demands drilling be stopped, is a hypocrite and has no credibility. [Hi Griff]

    If the anti oil people were sincere in what they say, they would be passing legislation preventing the use of oil and its products, not the harvesting. But they are not sincere and they are not about the environment, so they don’t do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. flipper (3,261 comments) says:

    There it is, the serial liar and escapee from the Mason Clinic, Griff …. on the prowl again..

    Am I getting under your skin Griff?

    Unlike you Griff, my UK friend and colleague Rupert Wyndham, is respected in all influential climate related scientific circles. I have never used his work without attribution. There is no need. It eloquently speaks for itself . Moreover, unlike you Griff, I do not regurgitate the link crap that you do, day after day, week after week, month after month, you silly little arsehole.

    Please take your silly socialist/red melon ego and stick it up Kennedy Graham, Norman and Shearer et al. Most folks here (as evidenced by your zero support) treat you as the very bad joke that you are. Unfortunately (for you) you are so self centred and childish that you do not realise the contempt in which you are held.

    So take your shingle Griff, and post it in The Standard…or anywhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Actually flippy I like winding you up because you are such a retard its fun.
    As for your friend Rupert Wyndham hes doesn’t actually exist :lol:
    I have tried to establish who he is and guess what nothing :lol:
    he might be influential to retards in the real world hes none As to being a climate scientist :lol: like you are someone influatual :lol: flippy

    They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
    No one you see, is thicker than he,
    And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
    Flying there under, under the sea!

    Everyone loves the king of the sea,
    Ever so dumb and stupid is he,
    Tricks he will do when children appear,
    And how they laugh when hes near!

    They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
    No-one you see, is thicker than he,
    And we know Flipper, lives in a world full of wonder,
    Flying there-under, under the sea

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azEOeTX1LqM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    So take your shingle Griff, and post it in The Standard…or anywhere.

    Flipper fuck off I am staying and taunting you for ever because an idiot like you needs reminding how pathetic you are on a regular basis

    you could cry to DPF.

    The last time he told you what an idiot you are :lol: Seems that your denial of co2 being a green house gas is the thinking of a moron.

    flippy flippy half a brain fully insane pathetic retard

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    former mobil vp warns of fracking and climate change

    Er, the US leads the world in its reduction of CO2 emissions, all entirely due to fracking.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Er the fracking process releases methane directly into the atmosphere a far worse green house gas.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    wat, Griff is a “genius” ! You should listen to him :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    A new MIT study shows that the extraction of shale gas through hydraulic fracturing emits only a fraction more methane into the air than conventional gas drilling

    http://theenergycollective.com/mark-green/149821/mit-facts-fracking-methane-emissions

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Wat like you kea is a fuckwit who thinks science is done on blogs by idiots like A Watts :lol: whackjobs denying science all together :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    It’s like shooting fish in a barrel isn’t it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Yes wat read the site you just linked to seems it supports AGW
    so if its an alarmist site why are you linking to it?
    answer because you are an idiot

    From your site

    A stunning DC Superior Court decision Friday on behalf of climatologist Michael Mann against the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) found:

    There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of “actual malice. The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements. Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove “actual malice.”

    There were actually two decisions handed in DC Superior Court affirming Mann’s right to proceed in his defamation lawsuit against CEI and the National Review Online for their accusations of data manipulation and fraud. The Court eviscerated the Defendants’ arguments (made in their Motion to Dismiss) that their attacks are somehow First Amendment “protected speech” — merely “opinion,” “rhetorical hyperbole,” or “fair comment.”

    The determination of “malice” is critical, as the decision explains:

    The Court of Appeals has stated that to recover for defamation, a public figure must prove that the defamatory statement was made with “actual malice.” Nader v. de Toledano, 408 A.2d 31, 40 (D.C. 1979); see also, Foretich v. CBS, Inc., 619 A.2d 48, 59 (D.C. 1993) (quoting New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 297 (1964). This means the statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

    In this regard, the Court points out CEI’s “reckless disregard for truth”:

    oh dear the hockey stick going to court and Mann will win :lol: That will fuck up A Watts and the rest of the nutters funding EH retard
    He is going to ask for and get full disclosure you know what that means eh watwat all the emails between the denial organizations will be released under court order :lol: Bye bye Cato heartland competitive Enterprise and a few other “Think tanks” propaganda merchants :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    Griff,

    What isn’t in dispute is that the infamous Hockeystick was generated by Mann’s home-made program which almost always produces hockeysticks even when fed completely random data, or that even with this incredibly incompetent program he still had to cherry-pick his data to get the chart he wanted (the directory named “censored” on his computer.)

    These are documented facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Read the judgement cock ….
    Seems that the court has decided you are wrong as is your source :lol:
    Of course Manns study has been repeated many times by many different scientist and guess what cock it is not only correct its legally supported.
    Keep it up fuckwit keep proving you are an idiot :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    Griff,

    These documented facts were not even addressed, much less refuted.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    There is sufficient evidence presented that is indicative of “actual malice. The CEI Defendants have consistently accused Plaintiff of fraud and inaccurate theories, despite Plaintiff’s work having been investigated several times and found to be proper. The CEI Defendants’ persistence despite the EPA and other investigative bodies’ conclusion that Plaintiff’s work is accurate (or that there is no evidence of data manipulation) is equal to a blatant disregard for the falsity of their statements. Thus, given the evidence presented the Court finds that Plaintiff could prove “actual malice.”

    you can read and understand simple English cock?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    Griff,

    Did this judge examine the Hockeystick and the methodology behind it?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Griff, your arguments from [self announced] authorities do not stand scrutiny. How about using that [self announced] “genius” to think for yourself ?

    As previously noted your full of shit. You continue to demand, and use, oil based products while having daily melt downs about their consumption and blaming the people who supply you your fossil fuel life line.

    Go back to the good-old-days when life expectancy was 1/3 what it is now if you want. But stop being a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    read the judgment cock
    Already proven right by more than one inquiry according to the judgment. This is not about proving Mann right its about screwing the lying scum that you follow.
    hence the Strong language used in the judgment

    reckless disregard for truth

    that from a law court is pretty definitive of bullshiting :lol:
    taken some air out there nutwhack eh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Er the fracking process releases methane directly into the atmosphere a far worse green house gas

    What do you mean “worse” ? The green house effect is essential for life. By “worse” do you really mean – more essential for life- ?

    Methane is naturally produced. Mans contribution is so tiny it is invisible against a background of natural variation. You are rather ignorant and unread for a “genius”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Yes kea
    Nassa. the un. national met services.world bank governments etc are not good sources for information about climate change far better to go to blogs sites by random nutters for info eh dick.
    :lol:
    You really are a stupid idiot

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Methane is naturally produced. Mans contribution is so tiny it is invisible against a background of natural variation. You are rather ignorant and unread for a “genius”.

    As you are trying to argue dont you think you should actually learn what you are talking about rather than just making shit up

    concentration in the atmosphere of a handful of greenhouse gases. The one that causes the most warming overall is water vapour – though human activity affects its level in the atmosphere indirectly rather than directly.

    The greenhouse gases that humans do emit directly in significant quantities are:

    • Carbon dioxide (CO2). Accounts for around three-quarters of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. The key source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, though deforestation is also a very significant contributor.

    • Methane (CH4). Accounts for around 14% of the impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially livestock and rice fields), fossil fuel extraction and the decay of organic waste in landfill sites. Methane doesn’t persist in the atmosphere as long as CO2, though its warming effect is much more potent for each gram of gas released.

    • Nitrous oxide (N2O). Accounts for around 8% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially nitrogen-fertilised soils and livestock waste) and industrial processes. Nitrous oxide is even more potent per gram than methane.

    • Fluorinated gases (“F gases”). Account for around 1% of the warming impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources are industrial processes. F-gases are even more potent per gram than nitrous oxide.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Griff, attacking me does not answer anything.

    1. How did the Ice Age we are emerging from end ?

    2. What part did methane play ?

    Come on “genius” show us your stuff….

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. nickb (3,629 comments) says:

    Shane Jones is a wanker.

    See what I did there?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    we are not emerging from an ice age……

    asking stupid questions that have no relevance or dont make sense proves you dont know enough to comment on climate change.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Methane (CH4). Accounts for around 14% of the impact of current human greenhouse-gas emissions. Key sources include agriculture (especially livestock and rice fields), fossil fuel extraction and the decay of organic waste in landfill sites.

    Nice cut n’ paste job.

    1. Are you suggesting there were less plants and animals before man came along and ruined everything Griff ?

    2. Or do only the plants and animals beneficial to man make methane ?

    3. Did organic matter decay before man came along and violated Gaia ?

    4. How did man make organic material like coal and oil, millions of years before there were any humans ?

    5. Where did the CO2 come from in the coal and oil ?

    6. Do the crops grown by man create CO2 ? (unlike the “natural” plants that consume it and exhale oxygen)

    7. How many years have you abused cannabis ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    screen licker

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    we are not emerging from an ice age……

    LOL :)

    Well there goes AGW. We are in an Ice Age folks.

    FFS !

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    kea take a walk outside and look at the natural world
    keep walking until you find some………. keep walking natural isn’t here in nz
    Get in a boat and sail to you find the natural world because you will not find unmodified environments in new Zealand.
    In fact the only human unmodified environment are outside of this planet.
    we have fucked with it all ..
    We have 31,100,000 sheep 10,000,000 cows 70,000,000pussums in this country
    pre man land based mammals in nz =0
    That is a lot of methane that was not produced before we came

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Griff, tell me the difference between a plant grown by man, or an animal, and one not grown by man, in this context ?

    This shows clearly your true motivation. You want this to be true because you think man is stuffing the environment. A valid point, but not proof of AGW.

    I was a “greeny” way before you started smoking too much dope. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    On further reflection you may be right Griff. What say we cull off some animals and plants ( to save Gaia) ? Starting with Dolphins, African wildlife and rain forests ?. Like you say, there are too many animals and plants. Since man found oil, animal and plant numbers have increased so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    Griff,

    Which of the “inquiries” actually examined the data and the methodology used in the Hockeystick?

    The answer is none of them.

    The Hockeystick is the result of cherry-picked data being processed by an incompetent home-made program which almost invariably produces hockeysticks.

    The exact reason why the program does this is now well understood, well documented by top statisticians and has been termed short-centering.

    The exact reason why Mann cherry-picked the data, well, you’d have to ask him.

    That various “inquiries” completely failed to make even a cursory examination of the methodology and data used to concoct the Hockeystick is damning only for them.
    Remember, it’s the person who finds the incriminating spots of blood who has truth on his side; not the ten others whose failed to spot them (whose “examination” of the evidence consists simply of asking the accused if he did it.)

    reckless disregard for truth

    That comment was made by someone who, like the “inquiries” it defers to, assumes that they actually examined the methodology of the Hockeystick. Not one of them did.

    It is a comment made from a position of complete ignorance.

    Perhaps in the court case we’ll actually see Mann being challenged for the very first time.

    The Hockeystick remains utterly refuted and exposed for what it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Its called denial wat wat it leaves a nutter like you unable to actually examine the evidence.
    we have a court judgment that says your belief is crap.
    Without doubt you are reading rubbish on a blog site. Steve over at bishop hill ? his refuting of the hockey stick was shown to be meaningless.
    As the judgement says the fact is the hockey stick is good sound science that has passed more than one review over the last fifteen years. It has also been added to by many more study’s that come to exactly the same conclusion.
    Keep it up wat wat keep trying to dis mainstream science from denial blogs sites it shows the stupidity of people like you.

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/07/08/2261531/most-comprehensive-paleoclimate-reconstruction-confirms-hockey-stick/
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23247-true-face-of-climates-hockey-stick-graph-revealed.html#.Uez-yazoPFw
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.