Outstanding! It’s good to hear you guys won’t be getting conned by the snakeoil salesmen who only know how to leech off the backs of people who actually provide something of value. Their world is crumbling around them and they are scrambling around trying to find something tangible to suck off. Hence the price of gold going ballistic at the moment. The only thing keeping the Mickey Mouse financial world afloat currently is the amount of taxpayers money that has been thrown in to the pit for them to play with. The Fed has a plan and it is working, devaluing the US dollar is the only way they can reduce their debt. India is now buying up gold at a rate of knots. China have been quietly accumulating it for a while now using their reserves of US dollars. Hedging against the Fed’s plan.
The second dip in the “W” shaped recession is well on it’s way but the second dip will be a lot lower than the first.

Sorry for the rant, it is just great to hear someone with commonsense not being sucked in by the bullshitters. Go the farmers.

Rodders has certainly come back strong after his previous dismal display on travel perks. Excellent speech!

To start, Nick Smith is a c*ck.

Heres a new ETS scheme that will last thousands of years, and they push it through under urgency in just a few months.

What a bunch of twats.

How do you arrive at 90% of field research being fatally flawed?

You didn’t answer that.

Are you Nigerian Andrei?

Yep you have. You just haven’t realized it yet.

How do you arrive at 90% of field research being fatally flawed? Is it just what you really want to believe?

The answer begins with Y.

Both data sets are, it appears, flawed enough to be ‘completely useless’. ( that’s in the EXACT words of the guy who spent 3 years (06 – 09) trying to sort out their data and models)

So who are we going to listen to? Luc Hansen and the IPCC or DR Ian Harris (CRU)

You don’t seem to quite understand – so I will lay it out in language that even a “denier” like you can get –

ALL the data that this whole (AGW) thing is built on is fatally flawed, they made things up to fit their models. Then they tried to hide it.

EVERYTHING downstream from their data is fatally flawed ( thats every IPCC report and pretty much 90% of any research done in the field )

I know it’s a bit confusing for you and Pete cause you really want to believe and all that but, mate, you need to get with the program.

This is Rodney Hide’s speech on the CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE (MODERATED EMISSIONS TRADING) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading, the bold parts are my edits

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): Let me be clear about a number of things. First up we have a very, very good Government. Certainly, we have an excellent Government compared with* the Government that we had for the previous 9 years. But even a very good Government can make bad policy. Even a good Government can make bad policy, and with this Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, we have a very good Government making atrocious policy. Not only do we have a very good Government making atrocious policy but also we have a good Government following an atrocious process. The Ministers of this Government who are voting for this bill and for this process have to accept that responsibility, and so does every member of Parliament who is voting for this legislation today and confirming the process that has been followed. Let me also make it plain that the ACT Party totally opposes having an emissions trading scheme for New Zealand. An emissions trading scheme for New Zealand will hike the costs to business, to farmers, and to hard-working New Zealanders right at the time when we can least afford it. There is no doubt about it, an emissions trading scheme will put up the cost of basic goods and services for ordinary New Zealand families. That is what this bill is doing to New Zealanders, that is what an emissions trading scheme will do, and that is why the ACT Party is the only party prepared to stand up in this House to oppose having an emissions trading scheme. Following the election we had a difficult situation with regard to the emissions trading scheme, because we had National committed to the emissions trading scheme and the ACT Party implacably opposed to it. We agreed to have a comprehensive review through a select committee. What we wanted, and what the select committee was supposed to do, was to do the rational thing for the country: to look at the options and to provide the costs and the benefits. It never happened. To this day this Parliament and the public of New Zealand still have no idea of the cost of this scheme. They have no idea of the cost of an alternative, such as a low-level carbon tax, or the cost of having a simple delay for a couple of years. They know nothing. Then we discovered that the Government had done a deal with the Māori Party in order to put through the select committee the changes that National wanted to make to Labour’s emissions trading scheme.

Charles Chauvel: Disgraceful.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Well, that was not disgraceful; what was disgraceful was what happened next. That was the true disgrace. At that point, I said on behalf of the ACT Party to the Prime Minister and National that we understood that they did not have the Māori Party’s vote all the way through and that if there was any difficulty with the vote, then they should come and talk to the ACT Party. I said that we opposed the emissions trading scheme, but we were prepared to help the National Government for the good of the country and, indeed, we were prepared to swallow a dead rat. We were prepared to swallow a dead rat in order to get a better result for New Zealand. National never ever* came to the ACT Party in order to discuss the options for the reform or the delay of the emissions trading scheme. National made a decision to commit to the Māori Party and to lose any negotiating power that it might have had. I accept that it is the prerogative of Nick Smith and the Prime Minister to do that. They are the ones with the votes. They are the leaders of this Parliament and this Government, but I say that the result was bad policy. It was atrocious policy and an atrocious process, and New Zealanders were sold out. What have we discovered? We discovered that all of this had to be done in a great rush, ahead of the rest of the world, in order to be done before the talks in Copenhagen. We are ahead of every other country. We discovered today at question time that this deal with the Treaty clause in it was concluded, according to the Minister, only after 1 o’clock yesterday, which was a couple of hours before it was announced. We know from the Minister of Māori Affairs that the deal was concluded only at 12 minutes past 3—presumably, that was when he was told that it had been accepted at Cabinet—which was 18 minutes ahead of the deal being made public. The deal with these five iwi and with the Treaty clause will now be passed under urgency, with no proper parliamentary scrutiny and no public input. It was agreed to only yesterday and it will be passed into law today.

Hon Dr Nick Smit: Tomorrow.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Oh well, it will be passed into law tomorrow, but I say to Dr Smith that we are in urgency thanks to him. I will read this Treaty clause to members: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” I challenge the Minister for Climate Change Issues* and the Māori Party to stand up in this House and put on record in Parliament what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are. If we are to have Parliament giving effect to something, then I think it is quite reasonable to ask what we are giving to effect to in this Parliament. We are not giving effect to the Treaty—actually, if we were giving effect to the Treaty, then we would not be having an emissions trading scheme—but we are giving effect to the principles of the Treaty. I would remind the great National Party, our support party, of National’s position in 2005. It is our job to be remind National of its principles, its position, its philosophy, and its policy. Its policy in 2005 was that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were to be expunged from all legislation. Why? Because, according to Dr Don Brash, who was the National leader at the time, the principles of the Treaty were undefined and unnecessary. Here is what Don Brash said in 2005, an election year: “This process”—that is, the process of inserting the principles of the Treaty every which way—“is becoming deeply corrupt, with some requirements for consultation resulting in substantial payments in a system that looks like nothing other than stand-over tactics.” I am sorry to say this, but the National Government, the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Climate Change Issues have allowed themselves to sell out* their voters and their supporters, to insert in legislation the principles of the Treaty that they were opposed to, and to cobble together this deal in the last few minutes before going public. They are ramming through under urgency, with no parliamentary scrutiny or public input, a deal for consultation for the principles to be given effect to and for regulations down the track to be passed. I say that Don Brash was right when he said that this process is becoming deeply corrupt, with some requirements for consultation resulting in substantial payments in a system that looks like nothing other than stand-over tactics.

Rodney Hide should be given the order of New Zealand for that speech. I personally am disgusted by the ramming through of this legisaltion, especially in light of the growing controversy surrounding the manipulation by scientists of data, the lies and obfuscations of leading scientists and the sheer gall of Nick Smith. My straw poll of National MPs suggests that most are deeply uncomfortable with this bill, the process and even the now the science that this bill is supposed to address.

There seems to be a lot of “if’s” and “mays” in that theoretical report.

That’s the way it should be, it’s about probabilities, not certainties, with a lot of ongoing research that keeps adding to the picture.

Those with an agenda and those with no understanding of the science talk in absolutes.

There seems to be a lot of “if’s” and “mays” in that theoretical report.

im more of a traditionalist, orange and red. that way if its only orange, you dont have to break the romance

Our safety word is “bananas”

Surging greenhouse gas emissions: Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present –day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2ºC. Even with zero emissions after 2030. Every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2ºC warming.

Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-based warming: Over the past 25 years temperatures have
increased at a rate of 0.19ºC per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short- term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

Acceleration of melting of ice-sheets, glaciers and ice-caps: A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

Rapid Arctic sea-ice decline: Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Current sea-level rise underestimates: Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

Sea-level prediction revised: By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by
Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as – 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea-level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

Delay in action risks irreversible damage: Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental icesheets.
Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change
if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds
(“tipping points”) increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty
could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

The turning point must come soon: If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2ºC above pre-industrial
values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a
decarbonized global society – with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases – need to be
reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well
under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-95% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000

Now according to Owen McShane, Chris de Freitas and Ian Wishart the above is all just not true.

Are you willing to risk believing them?

http://www.democracymum.co.nz

It’ll be interesting to see what the take-up is with the extra shares option.

1. The 5 Iwi will lease land to ‘other’ interests and start generating cash immediatly

2. Other Iwi will start to make noises about why they were not included, and at some stage later they’ll be tossed millions more to secure the Maori party vote on a subsequent bill

3. There will be no ETS cost/benefit analysis done, and any figures generated by Treasury or industry will be rejected as extreme by the government

What on earth is the “moderate centre left”? What’s your continuum?

Anyway, about AGW and all that, try this: (ps, sorry, it is not a comic)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/