“It’s going to be diddums for everyone in 10-30 years time John.”

Yeah, perhaps, but not because of “Global Warming”. Redbaiter is right, the wheels are falling off you guys latest hobby horse, but don’t worry, you’ve got the propagandisation of the West so sewn up that you’ll have equivalents of TeQuaeda and the Unabomber numbering in the tens of thousands running around murdering your hated foes, like anyone who makes too much money for example……

As I read it, Heartland posted a piece by Avery of the Hudson Institute on their own webpage. Just as all of us post other people’s papers and reports on our sites.
For the record I am not on that list so I don’t see the connection to me at all. To my mind Avery has done something silly. He has written a long list of claims within one statement and then referred to a list of authors who at some or other have supported one or more of those claims. Inevitably some have supported one claim and not other and have asked to be removed from the list.
Avery should have got all their permission or linked the name to each statement.
Silly man. He should have known this would be jumped on and deservedly so.

Care to stop categorising the contents of my brain based on…what exactly?

Yeah, Helen Clark/Labour have been crap on the issue of emissions, caving to pressure to not to implement a simple carbon tax a few years ago, and then pissing around while our emissions increase! I simply just see absolutely no basis for your comment: “Now let’s see which politicians were honest and bright enough to warn us that man-made global warming was a beat-up.” Like people ‘are not listening to Labour’, i’m getting that way about the ‘na na na it’s not happening’ group. Like Heartland and those associated with it (not you, to my knowledge). Anyway if you want to smash the AGW ‘myth’, I would do it at a specialist climate change site like http://www.realclimate.org or http://www.hot-topic.co.nz

I’m guessing you lefties (not to mention a few Latter Day Centrists) must be finding it rather hard to justify your dishonest positions right now.

But this is about the ETS…

Anyone with the ability to analyse information and deal with it logically could not help but be aware that the Iraq propaganda campaign and the Global Warming propaganda campaign are both just a pack of lies from leftist power seekers. Those two campaigns are the result 1) of the left’s bitter disappointment at the fact that they do not hold power in the USA and their determination to take back what they have lost and 2) their long term objective to destroy capitalism. Leftists are liars. All they want is power, and they will do and say anything in pursuit of that objective.

Both the Anti Iraq war campaign and the Climate Change campaigns are propaganda initiatives that have emanated from global socialist/ communists groups who burn with the desire to unseat the US Republican Party and expand their international power base. Buy into either of these lies, and your supporting a plan that is today the greatest threat to freedom and democracy that the western world faces.

Johnboy, thanks for the table. I do think it would be stupid to ignore Europe in any case, as they are still *much* wealthier on a per capita basis – if their various economies grew ~3%, their purchasing power is still grows a lot more than if China’s grew 6% (I think I am correct in the maths, but I’m sure you get what I mean).

Edit: The policy response in ALL of our key markets (the US will have a national-level response after Bush, and Oz soon too) will have immediate impacts here. The impact will differ based on whether we are seen to be doing something or not, I believe.

That being a bit of a problem with the report –

it explicitly assumes that there is no international action to reduce emissions, so that our ETS is out all on its own, and our exporters are therefore forced to price themselves out of their markets.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/05/01/white-lightwhite-heat/#more-381

Helen Clark mouths the slogans her focus groups want to hear, yet presides over one of the poorest environmental performers.

John Key knew it was a hoax, but ‘changed his mind’ when the focus groups said it would cost him votes.

Only Rodney Hide, parliament’s most qualified environmentalist, was both right and honest.

“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”

Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.

The average global air temperature near the Earth’s surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations”[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries

“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”

Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.

The average global air temperature near the Earth’s surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations”[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”

Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.

The average global air temperature near the Earth’s surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations”[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (May 2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.

“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”

Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.

The average global air temperature near the Earth’s surface increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the hundred years ending in 2005.[1] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations”[1] via the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950 and a small cooling effect from 1950 onward.[2][3]

These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science,[4] including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

# The Science Of Climate Change. Royal Society (May 2001). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
# ^ Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change. Royal Society (June 2005). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
# ^ Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (May 2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.

“Another communist myth underpinned by the usual Stalinist device of repeating a lie over and over until it becomes the truth.”

Yeah sure, you keep telling yourself that.

On December 17th, 2001, in a small room a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair.

Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein.

he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam’s men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.

There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.

The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn’t true didn’t mean it couldn’t be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation — part espionage, part PR campaign — that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war

Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar Judith Miller of The New York Times (who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration) flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his Iraqi National Congress handlers.

Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES,

It was the first in a long line of hyped and fraudulent stories that would eventually propel the U.S. into a war with Iraq

As President Bush was about to argue his case for war before the U.N., the White House had given prominent billing to al-Haideri’s fabricated charges.

In a report ironically titled “Iraq: Denial and Deception,” the administration referred to al-Haideri by name and detailed his allegations — even though the CIA had already determined them to be lies. The report was placed on the White House Web site on September 12th, 2002, and remains there today. One version of the report even credits Miller’s article for the information.

Miller again reported that Pentagon “intelligence officials” were telling her that “some of the most valuable information has come from Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri.”

Finally, in early 2004, al-Haideri was taken back to Iraq by the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group. On a wide-ranging trip through Baghdad and other key locations, al-Haideri was given the opportunity to point out exactly where Saddam’s stockpiles were hidden, confirming the charges that had helped to start a war.

In the end, he could not identify a single site where illegal weapons were buried.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/4

I make exports about $983M for EU and $6981M for rest of world for three months ending March 2008. Significant yes but not significant enough to bankrupt ourselves over delusions of saving the planet Imports for the same period are$1607 from EU. So who would be cutting whose throat if the pricks in Europe want to play hard ball. Besides they have been shafting us for years so we don’t need to kowtow to the bastards. Look for yourself.

http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C93A6474-9A25-4C17-9D2A-A015A49BDA2C/23328/omtmar08alltables1.xls

However, you only have to read to page 7 to find that their model predicts 42% GDP growth from 2007 to 2025 under the ETS, vs 44% without it – that’s where the $6b comes from. ie it affects about 1 part in 20 of our economic growth. Not such a great headline.

And Idiot/Savant http://stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/04/30/climate-change-policies-no-longer-sustainable/

The NZIER’s $6 billion is the usual miracle of compound interest trick. What it actually means is that GDP in 2025 will be $6 billion lower than it would be without an ETS. What that means in practice is that we’d only be as rich in 2025 as we would have been in 2024 if we hadn’t had an ETS. Big fat deal.

And as Idiot/Savant mentioned, the EU is quite interested in what efforts countries are taking to reduce emissions: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,527344,00.html

The European Commission is considering a carbon tariff on goods from countries where greenhouse gas emission policies do not match European standards.

Hope we don’t export there…