Kiwiblog

Populus polled the UK on climate change in early November 2009, before Climategate, and again in early February 2010.

The findings, and the changes from November to February are:

• 75% (-8%) agree global warming is happening
• 34% (-16%) of that 75% agree it is an established scientific fact that climate change is largely man-made
• 50% (+11%) say man-made global warming is a widespread theory but has not been conclusively proved
• 14% (+5%) say man-made climate change is environmentalist propaganda with little or no evidence

Now to look at these numbers as shares of the total population, they are:

1. 25% (+8%) say there is no global warming
2. 11% (+4%) say there is global warming but it is natural
3. 38% (+6%) say there is global warming but it has not been conclusively proven it is man-made, however that is the widespread theory
4. 26% (-16%) say that there is global warming and it is an established scientific fact it is largely man-made

So this shows the magnitude of the changes. Those who say it is a fact we have man-made global warming has dropped from 42% to 26%. That is a relative decline of almost 40%, so one in three people who believed global warming is definitely man-made have changed their minds.

UPDATE: This Blunt cartoon seems topical

Tom Scott hits the mark!

Spot on cartoon by Guy Body in the Herald.

So very true. Original cartoon here.

The latest topical Blunt cartoon.

Two cartoons from Blunt, which are topical:

From time to time Kiwiblog will feature topical cartoons.

From the Dom Post of course.

This Tremain cartoon, taken from Homepaddock, sums it all up.

The TVNZ midday news saw political reporter Jessica Mutch try to explain what the Peters/Henry story now was, and you could see the palpable disbelief.

Colin Espiner blogs a line he stole from brother Guyon:

My dear brother Guyon has pinched a few lines off me over the years, so I’m going to nick one of his: The only testimony Brian Henry could have delivered before the privileges committee today that was less credible is if Winston Peters’ lawyer had simply said: “My dog ate it.”

Well the dog ate the phone bill from the mystery motel he claims to have ring Owen Glenn from!

New Zealand First insiders and Peters himself had talked tough over Henry’s recall to the committee this morning, claiming to some journalists that the lawyer would provide evidence this morning that refuted Owen Glenn’s version of events. He did nothing of the sort.

Indeed, everything Henry said and offered this morning in the way of evidence simply corroborated Glenn’s version of events.

You have to wonder what sort of morons talk up in advance evidence that actually proves their Leader lied, and corroborates what Owen Glenn said. Either they didn’t know what Brian Henry was going to say (which means they have blind faith) or they didn’t understand how damning it would be for Peters and Henry.

In my opinion, Henry offered doubt today but it was not reasonable.

Indeed. Reasonable doubt means exactly that – is it reasonable. No reasonable person can really doubt that Peters has lied. And as it so happens the Privileges Committee does not even need to satisfy the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. They merely need to satisfy “on the balance of probabilities”.

Will this finally be enough for Clark to sack Peters? I doubt it.

I doubt it also. She needs Peters after the election, so that means minor stuff like lying the public, lying to the media, false declarations, and lying to the Privileges Committee are all forgiveable by Clark.

UPDATE: NZPA quotes the Laboru Party MPs trying to defend Winston:

Labour MPs said the way Mr Glenn and Mr Henry referred to each other by first names in emails showed familiarity.

So these MPs have no shame? no standards at all? They are so desperate to protect Winston (and incidentially declare their largest ever donor to be a liar) that their defence is that first names were used in emails.

This is so pitiful, I won’t even bother pointing out the gaping flaws in their argument. I’ll let readers do that for me.

From today’s Herald. Very good.

This cartoon from the Southland Times sums it up.

The General Debate yesterday saw the most extraordinary “Operation Protect Winston” from Labour and WInston himself. It took 90 minutes for Rodney Hide to make a five minute speech as senior Labour Ministers and Winston did everything they could to stop Rodney from revealing further damning claims of corruption, including alleged lies to a select committee.

Considering how often Winston Peters and Trevor Mallard have made wild accusations under parliamentary privilege, it was galling to see them both work towards stopping Rodney Hide quoting someone who was willing to state their views on camera to TVNZ.

The Dom Post reports Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge expressing concern over how the Government is trying to block Hide from revealing accusations of corruption.

On a related note, it was telling last night when the audience at Back Benches were asked to indicate if they beleive Winston Peters was telling the truth regarding Owen Glenn. Not a single person in the audience indicated they thought Peters was telling the truth.

The Government should be demanding the SFO investigate the allegations or be setting up a Commission of Inquiry into them – not trying to shut MPs down.

Mike Moreu in today’s Dominion Post. The cartoonists are having a field day.

Let us start with John Armstrong:

If that was not enough, there were further shockwaves with yesterday’s Dominion Post making fresh allegations surrounding NZ First’s handling of donations, questions about whether the racing industry source of those donations has compromised Peters as Minister of Racing and claims that taxpayers paid his lawyer’s legal bills through Parliamentary Service funding.

Those allegations were largely unsubstantiated, making it fairly easy for someone with Clark’s experience to bat away the resulting questions. She may have only brief respite, however. The confidence with which the newspaper made the claims suggests it has the documentation to back them up – with maybe more to come.

Indeed, and remember Phil Kitchin here is the journalist who exposed Donna Awatere-Huata and the Police misconduct in Rotorua.

Peters dismissed the article as “a smear campaign of unsubstantiated allegations”. But Clark realises, even if Peters won’t, that such responses are no longer satisfactory given the seriousness of the allegations he is facing.

Well they had a photocopy of a cheque on their frontpage. That seems to have a degree of substantiation. But as Armstrong notes, Peters has problems claiming it is all lies, because he said exacly that about the NZ Herald e-mail. He said they fabricated the e-mail and that they were lying and they were not.

She urgently needs to move this dreadful mess off centre-stage – both for her sake and Peters’. She has accordingly dropped big hints to relevant Government agencies to investigate the claims if they see fit.

Those agencies are an ever-lengthening list – Auditor-General Kevin Brady; the Registrar of MPs’ Pecuniary Interests, Dame Margaret Bazley; the Electoral Commission; Inland Revenue; Parliament’s Speaker and privileges committee; the Cabinet Office; and even – as Clark mentioned – the police.

Ever since the issues of Taito Philip Field, I have believed that NZ now needs an Independent Commission against Corruption that has powers to investigate all aspects of corrupt or highly unethical behaviour from Ministers, MPs and other very senior holders of public office. Having six different inquiries taking place like a fragmented jigsaw is not as good as one competent investigation with full powers.

I would love National to pledge to establish such a Commission. It would be a noble thing for them to do, as their own Ministers would be the first one to be subject to its scrutiny – but it is needed as we have seen in recent years with Field, Awatere-Huata, the various Immigration Service affairs, the Benson-Pope affair etc.

Audrey Young reports:

Questions were also raised in Parliament as to whether Mr Peters declared that his party had received substantial donations from the racing industry, where the Vela brothers are big players, before negotiating the post of Racing Minister with the Prime Minister.

And then proceeding to force Cullen to such generous funding of the racing industry that they ignored strong Treasury advice against it.

Incidentally while the Velas have New Zealand citizenship, like Owen Glenn, I understand they are (or were at least) officially foreign residents and only visitors to NZ for tax purposes . So once again the great crusader againgst foreign investment is revealed as having his major funders being foreign residents.

New Zealand First did not dispute reports that Mr Henry had been paid an amount from the Parliamentary Service last year but that is understood to have been for contracted work on the Electoral Finance Bill, not for litigation.

Jesus Christ – $45,000 for advice on the Electoral Finance Bill. Considering how often NZ First keep breaking their own law, they should ask for a refund.

But she appeared to be thrown by a question from Green Party co-leader Russel Norman on non-declaration of possible conflicts of interest.

He asked: “Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs was involved in negotiating the very substantial tax breaks that this Government has delivered to the racing industry; if so, in those negotiations, did he declare the very substantial donations that New Zealand First had received from the racing industry?”

After over a week of silence, it is good to see the Green Party finding its voice.

Mr Peters’ New Zealand First colleagues all took turns to ask questions focused on an aspect of his achievements as Foreign Minister.

This was so sad, I actually felt sorry for them. Like lemmings, one after another asked a pitifully sycophantic question to Helen lauding the fact Winston had gouged the taxpayer for more money for MFAT or the such. None of them were allowed to even try and engage on the central issue of the secret donations.

What was also interesting is that NZ First asked more than their four allocated supplementaries which means Labour must have donated some of their quota to their good mates in NZ First.

Mark Keating does an op-ed on the taxation issues around the donation. This is a fuller version of what I summarised yesterday. I did find this line very funny:

Mark Keating is a senior lecturer in tax law at (ironically) the Owen G. Glenn Business School of the University of Auckland

Heh.

Finally we have Rod Emmerson:

Just spot on.

Ouch.

Because they always get the last word!