About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

November 16, 2009 8:00am by David Farrar

General Debate 16 November 2009

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment81

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (81)

Login to comment or vote

Pete George

Good to see Kiwiblog is back up (after at least a couple of hours of “Error establishing a database connection”), I thought the progressives must have sabotaged the site to stop free speech.

[DPF: There was a DOS attack, I am told]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:24am
tom hunter

I did not notice until very late yesterday, Malcolm’s GD comment on the failure of the US “Stimulus” bill to actually stimulate the US economy, so I’ll just treat today’s GD as a catchup.

Malcolm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/general_debate_15_november_2009.html#comment-631832

You’re assuming your unnamed “expert” predictions about unemployment in the absence of a stimulus package would have transpired. That’s pure conjecture.

The point is that those predictions about what unemployment in the absence of a stimulus package would have transpired were lower than what the US actually has with the stimulus package.

In any case, they’re the Obama administration’s pure conjecture. It was their economic advisors, together with other experts advising the Democratic House and Senate, that made these forecasts. One can assume that there were a fair number of economic Phd’s in those groups, and ones with a lot of experience analysing both the US economy and the effect of government on it, so “conjecture” is probably being a little harsh, even for the dismal science.

It was this group that produced the now infamous graph showing what unemployment was “conjectured” to be with, and without, the stimulus – as shown in by Innocent Bystanders.

Perhaps your critique was just a little clumsy and that you meant to say that unemployment might have been even higher without the stimulus – which seems to be what you’re getting out with your next sentence:

And there were plenty of predictions much worse that 10%, so why ignore those?

I’d be interested in seeing whose predictions you’re thinking of here – and by predictions I mean ones from other groups of economists using econometric models – not some yahoo screaming about how it’s the next Great Depression and we could be looking at 25% unemployment. I recall there were plenty of those, but I don’t count them as predictions.

Unemployment at 10.2% is very mild considering the severity of the recession in the US (second only to the Great Depression when unemployment exceeded 25%).

It’s already the second worst post-WWII, behind the 81/82 recession (10.8% I recall) – and it since it is a lagging indicator we can expect it to go higher over the next 12 months as this recession has only just officially ended with some GDP growth in the 3Q. And there have been numerous economists who’ve pointed out that if one counts unemployment as they did at that time the apples-to-apples rate is 17%.

There’s plenty of theory behind the stimulus idea and most developed countries (including NZ) has done a bit of it. I’m not saying all stimulus spending is good (cash-for-clunkers seems to be a net destroyer of wealth), but the theory is sound.
The theory is pure Keynes, and when an economy is at 25% umemployment, with perhaps even greater proportions of commercial activity idled, and a government that forms just a small % of GDP, i.e the Depression, it seems to work (although the Austrian school have a pretty solid revisionist argument that it did not). However, it has already been proven not to work in other situations, the first being the 1970’s where the result was inflation and recession, (stagflation), something few economists (and certainly no Keynesians) had predicted.

I’d say we’re in the latter situation now. The US government (Fed, state, local), already formed close to half of the US economy as the crash hit. If the already collosal amounts of government spending could not hold up the $15 trillion/year circus tent economy then it’s hard to see how a “piddling” $787 billion would make a difference.

If you just want to criticise the Obama administration, there are plenty of legitimate areas (dumb tariffs on Chinese tyres etc). There’s no need to clutch at straws.

Which is actually the problem with both your arguments and mine – because the Stimulus is not really a Keynesian effort and never was. Krugman first twigged to this months ago (as did others) when he finally saw the bill’s detail and realised (with a squeal of outrage) that most of it’s spending is back-loaded. In fact, only about 15% of the total has been spent to date, so if you were a Keynesian (and Krugman is) you would have been jumping up and down about how this is not actually injecting much money into the economy in the midst of the recession when it’s needed, and for which purpose it was supposedly ballyhooed.

What a surprise! Mr “Vote Present” allowed Nancy, Harry, and every dingaling in Congress and the Senate with a pet project, to have their head and he just signed at the bottom. The result is an entirely predictable, Muldoon-style, pissup of taxpayer money in 2010-2012 – exactly when incumbent Democrats will running for office.

The result is that, for the moment, the Republicans and the right in general, can justifiably beat Obama over the head with this piece of pork. Obama and company talked it up and they own it. Of course when the money really starts flowing at election time the result on the US economy will not be unlike teenage boys with a car, dynamite, and a crate of whisky. It’ll be a fun party and nobody will give a shit about right-wing critics then.

But afterwards……. Man….. Figuratively speaking, we’re living quite a few blocks away and even I’m putting sheet metal on the roof and sides of the house.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:26am
mickysavage

I see the ETS report back from the Select Committee considering the Bill is due to be released today. I have two questions:

1. Has Treasury actually worked out how much it will cost?
2. How much is it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:36am
Brian Smaller

So what do people thnkk of President Obowma kowtowing to Emperor Akihito? Personally, I think that the old emp has a sense of humour and just told him his shoe laces were undone. Seriously – Obama must be getting very bad advice from his protocol people. No other world leaders seem to bow to the Japanese monarch.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:47am
tom hunter

Bah – these lines were from Malcolm’s comment:

There’s plenty of theory behind the stimulus idea and most developed countries (including NZ) has done a bit of it. I’m not saying all stimulus spending is good (cash-for-clunkers seems to be a net destroyer of wealth), but the theory is sound.

#%@$%&!& blockquote **!*!*!…..grumble, grumble
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:07am
tom hunter

Brian

As the US President he’s also a head of state and therefore should not bow to any king, queen, prince, or emperor. In the case of Japanese etiquette I think that all that was required was the traditional slight nod of the head – the equivalent of shaking hands.

But let’s face it – this is Obama we’re talking about. He probably just did not have clue and likely does not even listen to his protocol people.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:12am
tom hunter

Just for a bit of fun – let’s see if this piece of HTML works – it does on “Tryit”:

The Stimulus graph:

Update ….. and clearly the answer is no. I guess DPF has disabled the graphs/images capability in comments?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:33am
Colonel Masters

Heh, I still remember the Duke of Edinburgh’s “slight nod of the head”. It was delivered with so much disgust that it looked like he was spitting.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:37am
Brian Smaller

To be honest I had images of Mr Bean head butting the Queen Mother when I saw Obama bow. Now that would have been funny if he had nutted the Jap emperor.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:39am
tom hunter

it….. it’s….. its.

$@%!@^@&@* this is not the way to start the day!!!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:43am
Sonny Blount

So what do people thnkk of President Obowma kowtowing to Emperor Akihito? Personally, I think that the old emp has a sense of humour and just told him his shoe laces were undone. Seriously – Obama must be getting very bad advice from his protocol people. No other world leaders seem to bow to the Japanese monarch.

Considering that 60 short years ago Japan was the nation that attacked Pearl Harbour, to alot of Americans he couldn’t have picked a more inappropriate figure to grovel in front of.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:49am
Murray

The American republic does not bow to royalty. Its pretty much a feature of their system. This is evidently another one of those features of republicanism that Obama has issue with.

Very cringe worthy stuff.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:04am
scanner

Another one from Joe Citizen –
He is the one that marched against the Springbok tour in the 80’s, he did this because he believed that a country that treated its’ people unfairly because on the colour of their skin was wrong, now he sits by and watches as legions’ of lawyers grow rich trying to extract taxpayer money and assets to pay for a perceived wrong committed by his grandfathers grandfather, and “oppressed” people reclaim their “rights”.

He struggles to reconcile the speed camera ticket for driving at 105kph delivered to his home in the name of road safety, then reads a story in the newspaper that his prime minister can be chauffeured at more than 160kph to attend a rugby game.

He has never beaten his children, but will admit to having smacked their bottoms as a last resort, he can count the number of times he has done this on the fingers of one hand, and feels pain when thinks about it today. He shakes his head as sees this form of parental discipline is now an offense as some people chose to beat their children to death, and in spite of this law still bash their kids to death in increasing numbers.

He considers parking 5 minutes over on a meter breaking the law, then watches the highest office holder in the land submit a signed forgery as their own work.

He watches as a former cabinet minister is jailed for corruption, and his former political allies refuse to publicly condemn him after having defended his actions to the nation.

He works loyally for 30 years one for employer to be given a thank you and a certificate when he retires, then sees an MP with 9 years of service walk away with benefits for him and his wife that working people can only dream about, then to add insult to injury he sees the ex MP stand up and justify his recent overseas jaunt as his “entitlement”.

He gives his vote to a political party that gets his vote through deception, promising tax cuts, changes to legislation with resource acts, a slimmed down more efficient public service, better health services and after 1/3 rd of their term delivers very little of the vote gathering carrot.

He wonders why the police force seem to be carrying out the “War On Methamphetamine” in name only, and the problem doesn’t look to be going away in spite of all the grandstand statements from police bosses, Joe reckons with a little commonsense, some law changes, less listening to some of the “experts” involved, he could have cut off their raw materials, dismantled most of the empires involved, jailed the scum running them in a proper jail not a holiday camp, impounded their assets and still have time to call into his local for a pint on the way home.

He shakes his head when the only people in the land that seem to have “rights” are criminals.

He watches as his aged parents lose their life savings in a finance company fronted by a sporting icon he worshiped as a youth, as a “solid as” investment, then watches as the directors of that company try every method they can to slide out of their obligations.

He sees a parliament where an MP can hold up a sign in parliament claiming NO to financial misdealing, and be then proven to have done what he was accused of in the first place, and be censured by the Parliament for “knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests” over a $100,000 donation made in 2005

He watches TV and sees the MPs that claim to work “so hard “ for the people, sitting on their bums reading a newspaper.

He sees the party that his father and grandfather voted for and supported change the law to legitimise the fact that they broke the existing laws.

Once again the call comes for some of the people that claim to run this country to stand back and take a long hard look at themselves, their colleagues, their decisions and the repercussions of them, and started working for the guy that put them where they are.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:29am
philu

‘choke..!..sob..!..’

that poor joe citizen..!

could someone pass me the tissues..?..”

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:54am
grumpyoldhori

Amusing the number of conservative septics who accept knighthoods from UK politicians in HMs name.
The same knighthoods that were up for sale by politicians in the UK.
What happened to that yank rule about not being able to accept a title ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 11:05am
david

Aw phil …. promises, promises
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 11:26am
Murray

Bad news for phool, John Key is going to make him get a job.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 11:56am
philu

does he need some good advice..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:00pm
Murray

Well lets look at your relative worth…. mmm no.

We do need somthing to stop up the sink though. that seems about your interlectual speed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:01pm
philu

go on muzza..!..go and play with yr ‘dress-up’s/toy soldiers..

..eh..?

there’s a good boy..!

(it’s adult time now..)

and you have nothing ‘adult’ to say..?..

do you..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:09pm
Ryan Sproull

Brian Smaller, you there?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:16pm
Murray

Go on phool have some lunch on the tax payer then thell them why you’re superior.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:29pm
Viking2

Well someone has worked out the cost. Small change stuff.

Battling climate change will add further $110bn – report
By MARTIN KAY – Stuff.co.nz
Last updated 12:11 16/11/2009
The Government’s plans to combat climate change will add $110 billion more than expected to New Zealand’s debt, a report out this morning has revealed.

The select committee report into National’s proposals to change the Emissions Trading Scheme says Treasury now estimated that proposals to allow much higher allocations of free carbon credits to big polluters would increase government debt by 13-17 per cent of gross domestic product by 2050.

That was about twice the 6 to 8 per cent of gdp that had previously been advised the Cabinet.

The changed calculation was included in Labour’s minority report from the finance and expenditure committee’s consideration of a bill which significantly changes the previous government’s ETS.

National’s proposed model would allow big polluters – such as Rio Tinto, which runs the aluminium smelter at Tiwai Point in Southland – to increase emissions.

It also pushed back the date for the full phase of free carbon credits to big polluters, and delays the introduction of agriculture, which accounts for about half New Zealand’s emissions, from 2013 to 2015.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:30pm
getstaffed

Viking2 – it’s madness isn’t it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:33pm
getstaffed

When polititians, MSM, greenies and new york bankers all agree on something you can be sure it’s not good for the average tax paying citizen (who, it would appear, is sitting idly by while this fraud is stealthily executed)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:44pm
Brian Smaller

Ryan – as it happens I am. Working from home today. Good except for when my vpn connection to work dies.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 12:58pm
Rufus

$110 BILLION?

WTF?!

So that’s the cost. What’s the benefit?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:02pm
Rufus

And don’t bother replying Phil – you’re not going to be paying for this madness, so it’s nothing to do with you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:06pm
Murray

The benefit Rufus is that we to feel good about Al Gore flitting about in a private jet while we sit in the dark eating tofu.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:17pm
Brian Smaller

Rufus – apparently it is good for our souls.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:26pm
Rufus

Exactly. Nobody know what benefits, if any, this will bring.

I see a bunch of people making a shat load of money off this, while the majority suffer.

Call me a cynic, but taxing the hell out of us won’t save the earth.

And anyways, the earth will survive. It always has.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:32pm
Murray

My soul is screwed so I’m excused the taxes.

Going to hell in an 4X4.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:34pm
Brian Smaller

Murray – I will do my bit by adding a few more farting cows on the block when I move in Dec.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:42pm
pentwig

Rufus

You have no worries about the phool replying – he has been asked to explain it but it seems he doesn’t know.

He cuts and pastes articles on GW to his blog, but because he has no audience he links these articles to this site, but then has no understanding of the article when asked for an explanation.

Aptly named, the phool.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:45pm
getstaffed

About the $110b. A few questions …
– How many jobs will be lost as businesses become uneconomic?
– What will inflation on farm/dairy products do to the average household’s budget?
– How many industries will exit NZ?
– How much of the economic fallout will flow through to reduced spending on health, education?
– How many UN job opportunities will be created for our politicians if our ETS compliance finds us in favour?
– If we had to spend $110b today, what would we choose to spend it on?
– How will Russia et all send our money?
– Finally, and importantly, why is this still being considered given the flaky scientific evidence of arthrogenic climate change?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 1:49pm
Repton

@Rufus:

$110 BILLION?

WTF?!

So that’s the cost. What’s the benefit?

There is no benefit.

The principle behind an ETS is that we need to reduce atmospheric pollution, and we can best do that by making pollution cost polluters money. Those that pollute the least will have the lowest costs, be able to sell their products below their competitors prices, and make the most money.

However, National have decided that the government will subsidise polluting industries. This means that polluters no longer have an incentive to improve, because the taxpayer is bearing the cost. In theory, this would place an incentive on the government to reduce its costs by, say, passing laws. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

So, blame National for taking a flawed scheme and removing any benefits it might have produced.

[if you like, you can also blame Labour for doing nothing during its 9 years]
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:08pm
Ryan Sproull

Ryan – as it happens I am. Working from home today. Good except for when my vpn connection to work dies.

Sweet, Brian. Do you remember what Sproull’s Law is?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:10pm
Brian Smaller

Which one was that?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:18pm
andrei

However, National have decided that the government will subsidise polluting industries. This means that polluters no longer have an incentive to improve, because the taxpayer is bearing the cost. In theory, this would place an incentive on the government to reduce its costs by, say, passing laws. But it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

Wrong!!!! It is Orwellian to call CO2 a pollutant. Everybody emits C02 – the harder you work the more you emit.

That’s elementary my dear fellow.

And of course that is the perversity of this scheme those who work the hardest and produce the most are soaked while the parasites who who produce nothing gain.

Of course as anyone who is awake knows the real goal of this scheme is not to “save the planet”, which it can’t of course, but to nail capitalism – which is why it is so popular amongst the brain dead who inhabit the left.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:19pm
Brian Smaller

andrei – the foolishness of it all will become apparent when the lights go out. Meanwhile the Russians will be spending our money on vodka and prostitutes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:26pm
scanner

Fecal Phool, you are such a juvenile tosser, perhaps it’s time you got out and found some employment instead of trolling for bites, because you are on here some village is doing without their idiot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:29pm
Ryan Sproull

Which one was that?

Sproull’s Law: Any time you hassle someone else’s intelligence, grammar or spelling on the internet, in doing so you will make some hilarious mistake yourself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:47pm
MikeNZ

Submissions to parliament on climate change bill, haven’t read them yet today too busy, will get to them later in the week.
But thought some of you might like to see them.
have a great day
http://www.pce.parliament.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/4516/PCE_Submission_on_the_ETS_Mod_Bill.pdf
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/0911/DBSCH_SCR_4520_ClimateChangeResponseModeratedEmiss.pdf
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:51pm
Brian Smaller

Ah yes – I recall it now. Did I just do that or did you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 2:52pm
getstaffed

From MikeNZ’s Scoop Link:

New Zealand National minority view
National Party members note that the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill reflects the principles of an emissions trading scheme that the National Party put to, and which was endorsed by, the New Zealand public at the general election in 2008. National members support changes and amendments to the existing emissions trading scheme to effect these principles.

Emphsis mine.

What complete nonsense. Labour was decisively shown the door because of their lies, deceit and rampant hubris. National stormed the void. They were not elected on the strength of a promise to tax us more.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 3:04pm
Ryan Sproull

Ah yes – I recall it now. Did I just do that or did you?

Someone else did, I think. Might have been intentional. Do a quick find on “interlectual”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 3:19pm
Pete George

Is anyone thinking of walking down (or is it up?) Queen Street this weekend on the walk for democracy – or is it a walk against our democracy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 3:37pm
backster

Scanner………Great Post.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 3:39pm
Repton

New Zealand National minority view

So the governing party released a minority report on the bill?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 3:43pm
Manolo

“They were not elected on the strength of a promise to tax us more.”

Entirely correct. Although the promise has already been broken, and we may expect even more taxes coming the population’s way if the incompetent Nick Smith is left in charge.

NZ politicians know no shame and are prepared to lie blatantly to get elected. So far, the current National government appears to be no different than Clark’s.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 3:57pm
backster

I don’t believe the Climate Alarmists and suspect that the whole scam is indeed a giant stride towards One World Government. However I understand The Government policy is that they won’t commit to the ETS unless other major players sign up to similar extortion at Copenhagen and that presently seems unlikely.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 4:08pm
Shunda barunda

Don’t you just love the logic of a child:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_zK2apRHI4

Shame we tend to get more confused the older we get.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 4:18pm
Ryan Sproull

Awesome, Shunda. Through that, I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBM854BTGL0
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 4:38pm
Pete George

I don’t believe the Climate Alarmists

Who do you classify as “Climate Alarmists”?

Do you dismiss the research of all scientists whose research shows that there is a highish probability there could be a problem, or just the extreme ones (whoever they may be)?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 4:40pm
getstaffed

Who do you classify as “Climate Alarmists”?

Those who tag people who question the veracity of the climate change theory by calling them ‘denialists’ can, and should, be called alarmists. It’s the most polite thing to call them.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 5:02pm
Luc Hansen

Bjorn Lomborg has an unjustified reputation as a climate change denier. In fact, this is a recent article publishes here: http://views.washingtonpost.com/climate-change/panelists/bjorn_lomborg/2009/10/the_science_is_clear_so_is_the_economics.html

The Science is Clear… So is the Economics

Looking at the big picture, there is very little doubt. The vast majority of climate scientists tell us that increases in carbon dioxide cause higher temperatures over time. We know that this will mean changes in rainfall, melting of snow and ice, a rise in sea level, and other impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans.

There is still meaningful and important work going on looking at the range of outcomes that we should expect–it is wrong to suggest that “all of the science is in”–but I think it is vital to emphasize the consensus on the most important scientific questions.

With some people drastically under-playing the effects of warming and others significantly exaggerating them, my view is that the careful research of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists, the IPCC, is the best guide to what we can expect from global warming – expecting a temperature increase by the end of the century between 1.6 and 3.8oC (or 2.9-6.8oF) higher than today’s temperatures.

I think we must acknowledge, though, that the most relevant, significant dialogue today is not about interpretations of natural science, but about the different possible solutions to global warming, and what their costs and benefits would be.

The relevant questions today are those like: What can we achieve through geo-engineering the climate? Are we on the right path to achieving the technological breakthroughs needed to shift away from reliance on fossil fuel? How much can we achieve through adaptation? How much global warming damage can be prevented if we focus first on cutting methane or black carbon emissions, or if we put more emphasis on expanding forests?

To get answers to these questions, we need to turn to economic scientists for answers. And, the majority of those scientists are pointing to problems with our very expensive, ineffective current approach of attempting drastic, short-term carbon cuts.

By Bjorn Lomborg | October 14, 2009; 9:17 AM ET

Lomborg shot to fame and infamy with his book “The Skeptical Environment” which surely establish his credentials as no soft touch. getstaffed and others would do well to spend some time with him here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/CCC%20Home%20Page.aspx
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 5:29pm
getstaffed

Luc, The science isn’t settled despite the best efforts of alarmists, politicians and the MSM to make it so.

Truth is no respecter of consensus – it stands on its own and, given a fair hearing which has so far been denied, the gaping holes in the alarmists claims of impending doom are just too big to gloss over.

I guess your vision of socialist’s nirvana will just have to await another global opinion manipulation opportunity.

Asteriods? Aliens? Crust fragmentation? So many opportunities, so little time!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 5:39pm
Sonny Blount

Do you dismiss the research of all scientists whose research shows that there is a highish probability there could be a problem, or just the extreme ones (whoever they may be)?

As someone who doesn’t know the first thing about what is in that research. What specific piece of research is it that you draw your opinion from? Can you name the scientist responsible for it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 5:47pm
andrei

World has only ten years to control global warming, warns Met Office

Absolutely convincing evidence from the very same people who got this wrong.

The Big Question: Why did the Met Office get it so wrong?

So true believers explain why you believe 10 year predictions from people who cannot even produce an accurate 3 month prediction.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 5:59pm
side show bob

Cool, Pete and Luc seem overjoyed with the prospect of parting with their hard earned cash, I hope for their sakes the Nigerian scammers are not reading their posts, they would be easy marks. I see the Aussies have dumped agriculture from their emissions scheme but we have dick whacking Smith hell bent on bankrupting the country. This fucking madness has to stop, or perhaps the plan is to turn NZ into a third world country so we get get some of the cash coming our way, by then it will be to late anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 6:11pm
Hurf Durf

Bammypoos is an idiot who thinks all Japanese go horizontal and say “Ah so!” when they meet each other in the street. Akihito looked so unplussed, it was nice of him not to burst out laughing and not make him look like even more of a clueless dickhead. Of course, I wouldn’t need to say what would happen if a certain ex-President did it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 6:57pm
Pete George

ssb, I have often said I’m far from certain or happy about the carbon measures being proposed.

There is no certainty in the science, either way. There may never be certainty, in our lifetimes anyway, climate and what affects it isn’t simply measured over short periods.

Those with fixed opinions have closed minds.
Those who say humans affect nothing and there is no potential climate problem choose to be blind to reality.
Some of the more extreme adverse predictions are only slightly more likely to be right than that.

We should be finding ways of using resources more efficiently and polluting less, that surely won’t do anyone any harm.

The real climate scientists work on probability factors, not certainty. I’m not a scientist, but my punt at the current situation is there is about a 75% chance we could have caused a significant problem and about a 25% chance we can do anything significant about it. I’ll keep re-evaluating as I find out more – and that is what I believe most scientists are doing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 7:19pm
Brian Smaller

I just watched a vid montage of about a hundred foreign leaders greeting the Jap emperor and guess what – none bowed. Watching the White House spin this as part of protocol is hilarious. Apparently some jap newspapers are not running the pic because it is so embarrasing. I just bet that Akihito was thinking, “shit, this stupid fucker is going to make me look bad – hide it behind inscrutable Japanese smile”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 7:27pm
side show bob

“We should be finding ways of using resources more efficiently and polluting less”, agree completely but I would suggest the way we get there does not involve socialism or big sticks waved by governments in the form of extortion. If you believe the only way to fight pollution and resource degradation is through huge taxation then you have rocks in your head. Generally speaking developed counties have less pollution and look after their resources better then third world counties because we have learnt that it will benefit our bottom line. Giving 110 billion away will actually increase pollution as we will no longer be able to invest in products and technology that would be good for the environment. This whole global warming shit and those fostering it are misguided at best and down right evil at worst.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 7:43pm
Luc Hansen

getstafffed, science in general is almost never settled. Observations continue as does ongoing development of more refined or even alternative theories. I am just amazed that you and your ilk would rather risk the catastrophe for perhaps millions of humans in the face of overwhelming consensus and evidence. Those contrarians who cherry pick their scenarios simply ignore the weight of evidence pointing to AGW.

Make no mistake, at the last minute, it may turn out the science is wrong, but if it isn’t, by then it will be too late. And the end result will be untold misery for future generations.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 7:46pm
getstaffed

We should be finding ways of using resources more efficiently and polluting less, that surely won’t do anyone any harm.

Now that I agree with. Most thinking people know what pollution is: toxic waste, and the kind of industrial aftermath that we witnessed first in the 19th century industrial-age, then in Soviet Russia and still, sadly, in too many countries. We can and should fix that pollution. However CO2 is not a pollutant and increasingly studies, like this one from Bristol University, are showing those who claim otherwise to be misguided.

As for efficiency, I agree there too. However what drives efficiency is organic consumer demand rather that state-originated taxation. The latter may be initially intended to change consumer demands via pricing, but IMO quickly becomes a blunt instrument to pay for increase welfare and get-me-re-elected policies.

Luc – There is ‘overwhelming consensus and evidence’ of the climate change scam if you open your eyes to see it. You and your ilk are as guilty of the myopia that you claim of me. However ‘Climate realists’ don’t have the backing of power-hungry politicians, nor do we have the MSM holding the front page for juicy stories of alarm and impending misery.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 7:54pm
Pete George

If you believe the only way to fight pollution and resource degradation is through huge taxation then you have rocks in your head.

I don’t believe the only way is through taxation, although what I am finding out suggests that if done right it may work better than trading (especially with all the exceptions and distortions being suggested).
Can’t comment on the rocks, never been tested for that.

Generally speaking developed counties have less pollution and look after their resources better then third world counties because we have learnt that it will benefit our bottom line.

Is the US a third world country? They have learnt that exploiting and don’t care about the pollution is best for their bottom line.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:00pm
Luc Hansen

Generally speaking developed counties have less pollution and look after their resources better then third world counties because we have learnt that it will benefit our bottom line

Actually, this isn’t true on a per capita basis And the poorest billion or so contribute a minimal amount. The developing nations are increasing their emission in total but are still way behind the supersize me, SUV driving developed nations on a per capita basis. In fact, the developing nations will never surpass the developed nations in total emissions over time because the fossil fuels simply won’t be available.

getstaffed, as soon as you introduce belittling words like “scam” and terms like “power hungry” (as if any politician is not power hungry-it’s probably the main reason why they are there) it’s apparent that your are not seeking serious debate but just indulging in ad hominem rants against learned and dedicated specialists. I suppose it must make you feel powerful, skulking as you do behind a nom de plume.

Pete, I posted a link to Bjorn Lomborg’s site above because he is one who actually is very skeptical of ETS or even carbon tax schemes. I am tempted by the theory, but still think that the precautionary principle means we should support whatever carbon reducing scheme the government settles on. Anything is better than nothing.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:24pm
philu

“..As someone who doesn’t know the first thing about what is in that research. What specific piece of research is it that you draw your opinion from? Can you name the scientist responsible for it?..”

the feature of the scientific consensus..is the vast numbers of peer-reviewed scientific papers that lead to that consensus..

there is no one ‘silver bullet’-reason..

b.t.w..blount..what qualifications do you have to disbelieve this scientific-consensus..?.

(just a ‘gut feeling’..?..is it..?..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:33pm
philu

“..This whole global warming shit and those fostering it are misguided at best and down right evil at worst..”

no..bloody-hands bob..you are the ‘down right evil’ one..

you are the one who everyday inflicts foul abuses/tortures on animals..

and pollute our country..

and all to make your ‘dirty’/blood-drenched money..

eh..?

you are the ‘evil one’..

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:37pm
Redbaiter

“Is the US a third world country? They have learnt that exploiting and don’t care about the pollution is best for their bottom line.”

More propaganda from Kiwiblog’s pet communist liar. A deranged US hating bigot who says nothing about what’s going on where his comrades rule.

http://www.asianoffbeat.com/default.asp?display=993
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:39pm
getstaffed

Luc – you’re hilarious. Really! You get all antsy about climate change being called a scam when anyone who dares question the veracity of the evidence, the motives of the powerful participants or the disregard for contra views is publicly denigrated and labeled a denier?
So let’s have some serious debate then:
1. Why is the atmosphere cooling when carbon emissions are increasing?
2. Does CO2 drive atmospheric temperature changes, or is it the other way around?
3. Why do IPCC publish trend-line graphs that show warming trends when longer periods show just the opposite?
4. Still on the IPCC, why are large datasets cherry-picked (tree rings) to show apperent warming when the dropped data suggests no such thing?
5. Are polar bear populations increasing, or are they dying out?
6. Why did the MSM lament the low summer Arctic sea ice a few years ago, while 6 months later the Antarctic summer sea ice was at record levels yet it was not reported?
7. Is the arctic ice cap expanding or contracting. Will NASA images help us there?
8. 10 years ago we were to reach a tipping point in 10 years. We’re here now. Where is it?
9. Why did the IPCC remove (yes, just remove!) records of the Medieval Warm Period from long-range temperature estimates?
10. Why do 89% of NOAA’s land-based temperature recording instrument sites not even comply with their own placement guidelines, being in built-up areas and near to latent heat sources? Further do NOAA ‘adjust’ their readings prior to publication, and if so what is the scientific basis of those ‘adjustments’
11. There is no peer-reviewed data on sea-level rise in countries like Maldives or Tuvalu despite a decade of pleas for foreign aid to stave off disaster. Why is this?
12. What has more influence on atmospheric and/or ocean temperatures: CO2 levels or solar energy oscillation?
.. and there’s more 🙂

Note that none of my views in any way changes the idea that it is both wise and responsible to care for our environment. The problem I have is when the subject material becomes a platform for powerful people to gain more power at the expense of the unformed (naïve?) majority.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 8:56pm
side show bob

So Phool are you misguided or evil, I personally think you are none of the above, deranged is more your cup of tea.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:04pm
philu

i’m not ‘deranged’..

i don’t spend my days being cruel to animals/polluting the country/peddling a foul cancer-causing muck….

for money..

phil(whoar.co.nz
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:11pm
Pete George

Red, earlier today you said “Its fakery deceit, impersonation and cowardice. You do not ever alter and thereby misrepresent what other posters have written.” Misrepresent is an understatement for what you say.

I’m sure you know as well as I that the US is one of the two biggest emitters, along with China.

You criticise the US a damn sight more than I do, and wish they have an uprising and revolution etc etc. To use your own words, “A deranged US hating bigot” might well be how many see you. But then unless you deceive yourself you will know that too.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:37pm
Repton

2. Does CO2 drive atmospheric temperature changes, or is it the other way around?

Ooh, I know this one (well, based on Gareth Morgan’s book, anyway).

In the past (as far as we can tell), atmospheric CO2 has always risen following a temperature increase, because a warming climate reduces the ability of the oceans to store CO2.

Right now, CO2 is increasing very steadily prior to the temperature increase — which means the great human climate experiment is breaking new ground.

12. What has more influence on atmospheric and/or ocean temperatures: CO2 levels or solar energy oscillation?

I know this one too (again based on Morgan’s book, _Poles Apart_). Radiation from the sun varies over about a 10 year cycle, with a difference from the maximum to the minimum being about 0.1%. Quoting Morgan, “while there is little obvious trend [over the past 30 years], such variation as there is suggests that the Earth ought to have been cooling rather than warming since 1978.”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 9:59pm
Hurf Durf

Speaking of climate change, new Top Gear’s up for download.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:10pm
Nomestradamus

Phool:

i’m not ‘deranged’..

i don’t spend my days being cruel to animals/polluting the country/peddling a foul cancer-causing muck….

for money..

You love to comment on how Side Show Bob earns his livelihood, but hate it when others comment on your DPB livestyle. Go figure.

Edit: What’s this “Request Deletion” feature for posted comments, and when was it introduced?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:11pm
philu

a long time ago nosty..

but then..you usually do take an inordinately long time to ‘get up to speed’/notice things…

eh..?

phil(whoar.co.nz)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:26pm
Hurf Durf

Qwardle Oodle Ardle Woodle
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 16, 2009 10:30pm
Nomestradamus

Phool:

Unlike you I don’t spend every breathing moment of my life blogging – in fact I don’t think I’ve commented here for well over a month. You should try getting out more. Maybe even spend more time with your teenage boy who supposedly justifies your DPB. Get some pride for goodness sake.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
November 17, 2009 2:26am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Should Beenie Man be banned?

Where do you draw the line? »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

Slandering Friedman and Hayek
Utopia
Professor Robert MacCulloch: End welfare transfers to high income families...
Breaking Views
A turn to the Big Stick.
Kiwipolitico
Word of the day
Hompaddock
The Secretary to the Treasury defending govt fiscal policy
Croaking Cassandra
Halberg Sportsman Of The Year Awards 2024 – Updated.
No Minister
Summer Contributions Drive
The Daily Blog
Open mike 27/12/2024
The Standard
United Rugby Championship Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Mission creep at Diversity Works NZ leads to taxpayer-funded DEI activism
Point of Order
JUDITH COLLINS NAIVETY
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
NZCPR
"... a broader, decade-long 'crank realignment' in American politics."
Not PC
2024 OIA stats
No Right Turn
Jacinda’s “Act” of kindness has increased abortions 23%
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Misuse of land use planning
Offsetting Behaviour
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d