Matthew Hooton is an idiot and/or liar?

Either he’s a idiot or a liar, of which the latter is indeed a greater of two evils (if one is a so-called political commentator)?

Why such an outburst? Simply, the guy makes the most outrageous statements (govt’s social policy is Stalinist, or Helen Clark will control the media if she wins the next election), which is fine if you are a grammatically challenged hack like myself (with a readership of about 2.5 people globally), not a so-called serious political commentator, and week after week he gets away with it, in print and on National Radio. It’s got to stop.

Today, for instance, (28 Jan 2008) he was actually dumb and arrogant enough to claim that Helen Clark’s (Prime Minister of NZ) environmental record was worse than that of George W Bush. Only slightly challenged by the presenter he tried to substantiate the claim by stating that under Clark’s reign CO2 emission had increased.

Audio here.

Let’s look at the figures shall we (metric tons of Carbon Dioxide Per Capita 2004)

United States
New Zealand

This equates to the following actual figures of tonnage.
First for the year 1990 with the US emitting about 4.7 billon tons to New Zealand’s 24 Million tons (if my figures are right? seems I am).

4 700 616 599 (USA) vs 24 150 000 (NZ) in 1990.

Then in 2004 the US rose to about 6 billion tons of CO2 emission (about 22.2% of the world’s total), while the Kiwi burden rose to 31 million tons or 0.1% of the worlds emissions.
6 025 863 873 (USA) or 31 200 000 (New Zealand) in 2004

Technically the guy is right in that emission have increased by almost a ton per person in New Zealand, yet the figures also show that emissions per capita in America have increased buy 1.5 tons. Surely this means that if one was to take this one environmental indicator alone NZ (and Helen Clark) does not have a worse environmental record than G W Bush?

Also if you look at the figures, it shows that NZ’s emissions per capita have started to track back down. Considering that Helen Clark and the Labour Govt took office late 1999, one could hardly apportion blame on the 2000 figure on Helen Clark.

I also fail to see how the country that is ranked 69th of world emitters of CO2 at 0.1% emissions has a worse record than that of the number one ranked at a disastrous almost quarter of the worlds total. Sorry Matthew, you distain of the govt is well know, but your grasp of reality and facts do little to suggest that you are a serious political commentator.

Now I’m not out to try to stage a Kiwi version of the Olbermann vs O’Reilly (left vs right) goings on in the media in America, although bless Olbermann for taking that nut job O’Reilly to task over his incessant lying and ultra conservative frothing.

All I want is for the NZ media to not become something as divisive and factually incorrect as that which the asshole O’Reilly gets away with. To state something as ludicrous as what he is trying to say, factually incorrect and slanderous is pretty poor and I really do hope that the media pulls him up on his claims better than what was attempted today.


Is this irony that just after publishing this post, I was reading the online news and it seems that Helen Clark isn’t so bad when it comes to environmental efforts.

PM gets UN environment award
Monday, 28 January 2008


Prime Minister Helen Clark has won a United Nations award for her efforts to fight climate change.

The annual United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Champions of the Earth award recognises individuals from each region of the world who have shown “extraordinary” leadership on environmental issues.

The article goes on. Please take the time to read it and remind yourself at what an idiot Hooton is.




Filed under Politics

5 responses to “Matthew Hooton is an idiot and/or liar?

  1. Hooton is quite possibly both and idiot and a liar.

  2. well he did try and get John Tamihere elected as mayor of Waitakere. i’ll go with Paul’s suggestion.

  3. Seems the greens are having a go at Labour too now. Mind you that is to be expected, what wasn’t expected was Bush claiming he’s taking the lead role in climate change.

  4. PaulL

    Our absolute volume of emissions is irrelevant, emissions per head is what counts. Suggesting that NZ is 0.1% of world emissions therefore there is no issue is very poor use of statistics and logic. On a per head basis US emits more than us, but their increase in percentage terms was way less than ours. Kyoto is expressed in percentage terms, so it is entirely appropriate to talk about this.

  5. yes and percentage they still emit more than us regardless of our increasing numbers.

    Mind you if John Banks could have his way, the great asphalt nirvana that he aspires to comes to reality, then we will have no problem catching up to Bush et al.

    Funny Kyoto isn’t perfect, and the earth doesn’t give a toss if percentage basis we put more into the air than the US, on actual tonnage, the US is doing greater harm than the majority of the earth, and at the end of the day it’s the physical tonnage of crap in the atmosphere that counts not esoterically derived diplomatic figures.

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