General Debate 16 January 2013

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment198

Uncategorized
General Debate

Comments (198)

Login to comment or vote

Griff

Negative I operate on a few other blogs under a different pseudonym
And a totally different persona
still that’s the web…. 😈 😆

RRM
50D
I got the same but don’t now where, I think it was when I told bereal to F off. I have over stepped the mark once or twice.
A little like a speeding ticket they get you eventually and the mature take it with grace

Long live DPF’s light moderation.
And the blogs own internal checks by Peer censure.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 5:56pm
Rex Widerstrom

Kea says:

If we assume good intent, both left & right want the best for people. The point of difference is how to best achieve the desired outcomes.

And sadly, the point of similarity is the arrogant assumption they know what that is, and since “people” don’t, they’ll just go ahead and impose it on us anyway.

I’m just about to go off and shoot an interview for Channel 7 on this nonsense.

Government lunchbar inspectors are on the horizon. Can you imagine it? “I’m closing you down, you’re using white bread in breach of Section 711(a)ixiv of the Health of the Proletariat Regulations 2013!” “But it’s hi-fibre white!” “Right, I’ll need to see a complete manifest of all bakery orders for the past year”… meanwhile if someone wants to open a new service station they’ll be told they can, but only if they forgo the profits from pies, sausage rolls, fizzy drinks and cigarettes as the “approved density” has already been reached.

Density is right… from the people who dream this stuff up. And this is a (quite conservative) Liberal state government, not Labor.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:01pm
Manolo

Thank you for the link, Rex.
That’s nonsense and nanny-statism at its most contemptible worst. The question is: will people of WA accept it?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:04pm
nasska

Some days start better than others.

Ref: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5no746rhcruuade/tn.jpg
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:14pm
Manolo

Will we ever learn?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/welfare-underpins-the-regular-abuse-of-children-20130115-2crh2.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:21pm
Fletch

cha, I don’t buy a lot of it, but some of it is definitely just, I dunno – weird.
That’s why I was asking what ppl thought.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:33pm
nasska

Manolo

From your link….

…..”The number of reports of child abuse has grown enormously.

It is not often realised that these do not represent a wider spread of abuse. The same hardcore abusers are being reported again and again. Welfare is the economic underpinning of the regular abuse of children.”…..

I reckon that the story in Aotearoa would be identical if reported on honestly….but that wouldn’t be PC!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:35pm
Rex Widerstrom

@Manolo

The people of WA accept a huge amount of nanny-statism, which is ironic given their self-image as tough, rugged sons and daughters of the red dirt and the mines. For example, the apartment complex in which I live has a pool. Last year it was closed over the hottest summer on record because it lacked signs indicating the requisite list of banned activities (“bombing”, diving, running with scissors etc etc).

This year – which is even hotter – they’re trying to close it because it doesn’t have a trench round its circumference into which water which slops over the edge can collect and drain off (this despite the fact that the water level is a foot or so below ground level). The reason for their concern is that sand may wash off the surrounding pavers and into the pool.

I assume they have never encountered the concept of a beach, at which I’m told sand and water are in perilously close proximity at times.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:40pm
bhudson

dime (5,328) Says:
January 16th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
RRM is a good dude. a tad misguided with his voting record is all!

RightNow (4,819) Says:
January 16th, 2013 at 4:36 pm
I’ve been KB’ing for about 6 years Kea and can’t remember RRM ever advocating for someone to be banned.

Pete George (15,821) Says:
January 16th, 2013 at 4:41 pm
Unlike you RRM has earned a fair bit of respect here.

nasska (5,461) Says:
January 16th, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Have to put my oar in & back Dime & Right Now. RRM is moving to the right.

Yep. He’s definitely smarter than the average goat.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:41pm
Rex Widerstrom

~~Welfare~~ Poverty is the economic underpinning of the regular abuse of children

Of which welfare is but one cause. I’ve regularly seen, for instance, child abuse in families in which both parents work, and earn reasonable money, but where one or both is addicted to gambling or alcohol or drugs or some combination thereof.

Also work is about more than money – it’s about dignity and self-worth. Australia is rapidly catching up to NZ in terms of having a weak labour market (today brick maker Boral was added to the lengthening list of companies making major layoffs, with 700 jobs to go).

Rather than constantly accusing benefit recipients of not wanting to work, those in a position to set policy should consider perhaps matching them with the needs of community organisations, whose budgets are under the twin pressures of increased demand for services and falling donations.

Simply being valued for making a contribution, and the appreciation (not to mention companionship) of those they help, may be enough to improve the outlook, and thus parenting skills, of many sole parents.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:50pm
Reid

Fletch @ 4:52 Very very weird stuff around the Sandy Hook shootings.

Then

TC @ 5.17 The Sandy Hook conspiracy nonsense is revolting. 20 children are dead.

and a few others in a similar vein.

What’s the bet those others rendered judgement without even watching Fletch’s link? Because, in their vast vast vast nay infinite understanding, it COULDN’T be true because hey, the world simply doesn’t work like that. Which is a much more juvenile and naive response that an average 10 year old gives if they are exposed to the General Theory of Relativity because at least your average 10 year old looks puzzled and admits they just don’t have the tools yet, to understand whether or not it makes sense.

But no, in certain people’s infinite understanding, they know best and so they don’t even bother to look at it because hey, THEIR world doesn’t work like that so why should they waste their time? This is why such people are called useful idiots. They display less intelligence than even your average 10 year old, whatever their IQ.

I haven’t assessed the video past a few mins but it mentions a few of the elements of Sandy Hook I’ve become familiar with. One in particular is the father’s interview at 8:30. Watch that.

Remember, this is a dad who just lost his “daughter.” (BTW, his “daughter” was later photographed sitting on Obama’s knee when he visited the school.

Nah, nothing to see here, not to the useful idiots anyway.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 6:59pm
Andrei

2012 Sports Illustrated Kids SportsKids of the Year
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:15pm
calendar girl

PG, I’ve just seen your comment @ 9:52 – My sincere apologies. I obviously misinterpreted your earlier one at 9:01, possibly because of the optimism expressed in your final sentence:

“But that may change, once TVNZ appoint a new head of news and current affairs to replace the departing Dagan and work out a direction for the new fluff show.”

It seems that I may have missed that sentence’s ironical intent. But be careful, that’s how you can be (mis-)judged when you appear to be endorsing the media views of ex-PM Clark’s media adviser, Brian Edwards!

But now I accept that you weren’t supporting the present TVNZ model. (Edwards would advise that I offer “regrets”, that’s his style.)

Finally, Pete, would you support a full sale of TVNZ as I suggested? (i.e. to the highest bidder, whatever the price, subject only to normal Commerce Commission scrutiny of normal competition issues.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:16pm
SPC

Reid, have you asked the conspiracy theory promoters for evidence?

1. the list of the dead reported in the media?
2. evidence of funerals occuring?
2. the death certiciates for each of them?
3. verify the identity of people shown in photos?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:24pm
Pete George

cg – I see no point in the state retaining ownership of TVNZ, it is owned by commercialism anyway. I don’t watch TV1 much at all and TV2 even less.

I’d like to see some sort of public broadcasting but a full TV channel is old format. Using NZ on Air to place better public interest programmes on appropriate outlets as happens to an extent now – whether they be broadcast TV, radio, online or mixed media makes more sense to me. With strong on demand and archive components.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:27pm
Griff

Your suggestion is noble Rex

There are some on welfare that would respond to such a chance these are usually those in genuine need of support from the tax payer. Many cycle though welfare at some stage in life only to successfully reintegrate into economic society.
The minority are outside of what we consider civilized. Their inclusion into any such scheme would corrupt the very community organizations you are trying to assist. These are the ones that give us our unacceptable child abuse statistics. Long term beneficiaries particularly children born into a benefit. The family’s of perpetual welfare dependence . Some are family’s are both incorrigible and unemployable. To stop this the intervention must be earlier and more energetic.

The only worth while spend on poverty and welfare dependence is at the young age where there is a more effective outcome /cost. Spend more of the available budget on early childhood intervention particularly in schools. There are some very good organizations who have documented successes in intervention in New Zealand. More focus on actual results than woolly ideological driven schemes with no measured out come as most funded now is squandered on

There is a level of nepotism and graft in our present systems Mostly this is hidden in a cultural matrix that both sustains and empowers such corruption. The impositions of culture on present methods of service delivery also hinder a transparent and result based evaluation of performance. Cultural based initiatives must conform to reasonable standards of outcome and accountability.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:31pm
TheContrarian

@Reid

Whose bodies were found at the school if not the children in question?

In fact, don’t answer. This ‘conspiracy theory’ is so utterly devoid of intellectual rigor it doesn’t deserve debunking.
Believe it – all the power to you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:48pm
big bruv

Can anybody explain why that wanker Bradbury has such a hatred for the NZ police?

http://tumeke.blogspot.co.nz/

I would love to ask him myself but like all left wing blogs he does not allow comments from anybody who does not share his views.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:51pm
Weihana

RightNow (4,819) Says:
January 16th, 2013 at 5:28 pm

“Sure, that the trend is calculated based on short term variation whilst neglecting longer trends.”

Well on that basis, if you drew a straight line in the “average” temperature graphs from 1750 to 2012 there would be a trend of around 0.07 deg C per decade (or 0.7 deg C per century), and the rise in the late 20th century could be characterised as a short term variation.

The distinction would be that trends on a timescale of less than 10 years are too short to measure trends in the climate. Douglass himself notes that:

“There is a tendency in the literature to mistrust any trend analysis involving periods shorter than decadal. This tendency is based on model evaluations, which play no part in the present case.”

Given that his findings do not depend upon model evaluations I guess that’s reasonable. But I’m not sure it would be reasonable to extrapolate his findings beyond the very short timescale he has considered to infer a long term trend in the climate.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:53pm
TheContrarian

@Big Bruv.

Bradbury is a self important wanker. That’s why
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 7:55pm
nasska

“You worry too much about this God shit,” he said. “Always concerned in case you offend the big Pixie In The Sky.”
“You should do what I do,” he said. “Go out and get pissed, get yourself a hot hooker & fuck the tits off her. You’ll soon forget all the religious crap.”

“That’s good advice Father. But can I take it you’re a bit disillusioned with taking confession?”
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:00pm
Rex Widerstrom

@nasska

Thanks, I LOLed.

@ Big bruv / TheContrarian

You don’t think that perhaps Bradbury has a point? (a broken watch is right twice a day, etc). There’s controversy over what police are calling “selective” video footage of an incident in which an officer was assaulted and the Herald, instead of asking its readers to send any video or still images to it so that they can be run alongside the footage police claim gives an inaccurate impression, ask instead for the information to be sent straight to the police.

I’d have no problem with the Herald passing on copies of anything it received to the police and the courts. But a news organisation’s first duty is to inform it’s readers, not act as assistants to the police.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:09pm
Lance

@Reid
Because every single fucking time I have looked into these conspiracy videos they are shown to be twisted half truths wanked up by agenda driven nutters. The worst of all was ‘loose change’… that was so fucked up. An explosive expert politely pointed out some of the presented ‘facts’ were impossible; then him, his family and his entire explosives crew received death threats.

Enough of the self trained experts and people without a grip on reality.

Seriously… Obama had 20 children murdered? You need help and increased medication.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:10pm
cha

Nice Reid, real nice.

http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/urgent-update-on-connecticut-shooting/

http://metabunk.org/threads/1054-Debunked-Emily-Parker-Still-Alive-after-Sandy-Hook
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:11pm
Rodders

nasska – it’s the way you tell ’em 🙂
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:11pm
TheContrarian

@Rex

I was more talking about why Big Bruv couldn’t ask Bomber about it because he is a self important wanker that rarely publishes disagreeable comments.

@Lance

No Lance, don’t you know – the kids were actors. Whomever died wasn’t the kids in question apparently. The coroner, the EMT’s, the police, everyone was in on it.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:16pm
nasska

‘She’s a horrible woman,’ said Murphy about his
mother-in-law. ‘She makes her own yoghurt. She puts
a pint of milk on the table and stares at it!
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:23pm
Rodders

🙂 reminds me of Les Dawson saying that you could tell when his mother-in-law had arrived because the mice were throwing themselves on the traps.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:28pm
RightNow

Weihana, I still maintain that the rise in OHC has decelerated.
I agree this is too short a time-frame to infer a long term trend with high confidence, but that has to cut both ways if we’re to remain objective.
I find it reasonable to infer the deceleration in OHC rise follows the pause in warming, with a lag of (by eyeball) about 5 years. Given the current pause is still happening I expect no acceleration in OHC rise for at least 5 years. If certain projections (e.g the latest UKMO projecting essentially flat temps for another 5 years) hold then make that 10 years.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:36pm
TheContrarian

Yeah – this guy looks legit:

http://www.sandyhookhoax.com/about.html

@Reid, you sure you wanna throw your lot in with this guy?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:37pm
RRM

BB 7:51pm –

I haven’t read enough Bradbury to know if he generally hates the police or not.

By repeating the Police call for any footage to be handed over to them (Police) the Herald are effectively saying that in this instance they are not interested in being “the people’s” eyes and ears because they trust the power.

Now a New Zealand Newspaper is probably on safer ground in being like that, compared to a lot of other newspapers in a lot of other countries where you without a doubt can’t trust the power. But the rap sheets of a certain Mr Shipton and a certain Mr Schollum do show that we probably shouldn’t always unquestionably trust them… hence Bradbury’s article. And hence that Malcolm X quote attached to it also.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:40pm
Reid

Reid, have you asked the conspiracy theory promoters for evidence?

1. the list of the dead reported in the media?
2. evidence of funerals occuring?
2. the death certiciates for each of them?
3. verify the identity of people shown in photos?

and

@Reid

Whose bodies were found at the school if not the children in question?

SPC and TC, like many useful idiots you ask the wrong questions about this issue because your mind can’t handle the mere possibility it was a setup so you look to ridicule the questions people raise because you are emotionally desperate to retain your sense of how your world works. It’s called cognitive dissonance. People who don’t have cognitive dissonance and aren’t useful idiots are able to watch not only this but other videos which are much better on this subject and calmly ask themselves without any emotion at all questions such as: How does a “dead” girl turn up on the President’s lap? (SPC BTW Emilie’s name was on a casualty list at least she was a few weeks ago when I last looked). How come this “dead” girl’s dad smiled and got into character before he gave his speech? How come some other parent’s were laughing and smiling and looking relaxed 2 days afterward? And other such questions.

Notice that unlike the useful idiots, these people don’t get all hysterical about how outrageous the mere suggestion is. No, they don’t, unlike the useful idiots, feel any of that. Why should they? It’s just a bunch of stuff that happened. The media says X. Does this mean the media are always right? Useful idiots say yes, of course, how could they possibly ever lie about something like that and how come you’re not all hysterical and rending clothes and suchlike at the human twagedy of the whole thing? And people who aren’t useful idiots just file the real questions away and keep thinking. Knowing that the video like that Dad who first jokes and smiles then composes himself before giving the required grieving parent acting lesson really was broadcast by the media as the real father really grieving give the lie to all the useful idiot hysteria, but at the same time recognising that as with all hysterical people, they’re incapable of reason so anything you say on the subject which is the least bit logical will never penetrate their fevered minds.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:44pm
OECD rank 22 kiwi

Loving the Herald articles on the Oz Exodus.

Kiwi’s deserting New Zealand is “Kiwi As”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:44pm
Griff

dear dear

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
Forecast

Global average temperature is expected to remain between 0.28 °C and 0.59 °C (90% confidence range) above the long-term (1971-2000) average during the period 2013-2017, with values most likely to be about 0.43 °C higher than average (see blue curves in the Figure 1 below).

The warmest year in the 160-year Met Office Hadley Centre global temperature record in 1998, with a temperature of 0.40°C above long-term average. The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:47pm
Kea

I’d have no problem with the Herald passing on copies of anything it received to the police and the courts. But a news organisation’s first duty is to inform it’s readers, not act as assistants to the police.

Rex, Their first duty is to sell papers and make profit. Their second duty is to “shape” public opinion on various issues.

You must remember that they rely heavily on the Police for many of their stories. So they do them favours. They will get something in return.

Duty to the public is a quaint idea but far from reality, with a few exceptions.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:48pm
TheContrarian

Reid, work on your critical thinking skills.

“anything you say on the subject which is the least bit logical will never penetrate their fevered minds.”

And you speak of cognitive dissonance?

This isn’t worth the effort – enjoy yourself.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:50pm
Reid

Reid, work on your critical thinking skills.

TC cognitive dissonance is an emotional condition. When emotions are involved, logic takes a back seat. Look it up.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 8:58pm
Pauleastbay

My wife was in the bathroom for hours getting ready to
go out when finally the door swung open and she said, “Honestly, do I
look fat in this”.

I replied, “Yes you do, but to be fair, it’s only a small bathroom”.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:00pm
Rodders

Some more one-liners
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210984/The-gloriously-PC-jokes-Les-Dawson-celebrated-new-book.html
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:06pm
Reid

I said in my first post there is better material on Sandy Hook than Fletch’s video. This is one of them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJj_wZtQb_k&feature=youtu.be
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:06pm
TheContrarian

My wife said to me the other day that maybe I should see a doctor to get some pills to help with our sex life.

She seemed rather cross when I arrived home with some diet pills for her.

Ba-dum-chiiii
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:12pm
Kea

Griff, thanks for latest AGW link.

If AGW is such a threat, then we should be working on a solution. I am sure you agree ?

I have asked “what is the solution” a number of times.

So far I have received two responses; The usual abusive remarks & one guy who said the rich countries should be taxed more to give money to the developing countries. I am not convinced that if we pour (even more) money into the developing world, that they will produce less co2. Usually the better off people create the most.

Do you have any SOLUTION other than the global communism idea your fellow AGW promoter has given me ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:14pm
TheContrarian

@Reid

The video says in the description:
” and all the key people – The coroner, The parents, The Nurse – None of them behave in a way that can be expected.”

So they are all in on it? So the whole community is somehow in on this? The coroner, The parents, The Nurse – they all know people and people know then but somehow you believe that these actors have come into this community and pretended and not one fucking person has noticed this, from the community and people that know these people personally, apart from people on youtube. And that the parents of these children are actors and not part of this relatively small community and no-one from the community has said “Hang on, I have never seen this person before?”
WOW.

That stretches the credibility much more than anything you have presented.

And JRense is a well known crank.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:17pm
SPC

Kea,

1. a carbon tax on goods involved in trade is a global tax that applies on all tradeable goods equally. It ends the advantage that some nations such as China and South Korea have operating outside of Kyoto Accord arrangements. The purpose is to establish a market incentive to use scarce carbon resources as efficiently as possible.

2. Using the money from a carbon tax to finance renewable energy for the third world and otherwise energy efficiency and new tech replaces existing funding out of rich country tax revenues – that have already been committed. Renewable energy in the thrid world allows economic growth without dependence on affording carbon.

How exactly is the proposal taxing rich countries more, it does not – it applies a carbon tax on a global basis and uses this money to fund existing commitments. Given first world governments are struggling with debts this is prudent. The concept is far from socialism – which you seem to think is a catch all term for any transfer from those who have more to those who have less, regardless of context.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:31pm
RightNow

dear dear indeed griff. A 20 year trend of 0.015 deg C per decade. That’s real confirmation of the models that is.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:32pm
Reid

That stretches the credibility much more than anything you have presented.

TC try not to be so hysterical and actually look up those cross-references provided in that short video and view them for yourself, instead of pretending you already know what the fuck happened because anything other than the official is so preposterous in your own tiny mind as to be unworthy of examination.

And who gives a fuck about the source or the website of the source? Only a moron makes up their mind based on the source. Why many conservatives still believe Fox is fair and balanced. How fucking stupid is that. But who knows, maybe one day, Fox might provide some content that really is, and it’s the content not the site, that counts.

So look up those videos of those “grieving” people and make your own mind up based on your understanding of human nature, as to whether they really do look like they’d just lost a child. And that’s the question. The question is NOT: gee, does this make any sense to me based on my worldview and if not, why I’ll pretend the video doesn’t even exist. Because the latter is the question you seem to be answering and that’s not the right question. Unless you’re a useful idiot.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:38pm
RightNow

The case against for CO2 being such a large forcing weakens further:

Black carbon is the second largest man-made contributor to global warming and its influence on climate has been greatly underestimated, according to the first quantitative and comprehensive analysis of this issue.
Key findings
Black carbon has a much greater (twice the direct) climate impact than reported in previous assessments.
Black carbon ranks “as the second most important individual climate-warming agent after carbon dioxide”.
Cleaning up diesel engines and some wood and coal combustion could slow the warming immediately.

http://www.igbp.net/news/pressreleases/pressreleases/blackcarbonlargercauseofclimatechangethanpreviouslyassessed.5.4910f0f013c20ff8a5f8000152.html

So with the emergence of shale gas in more developed countries taking pressure off global oil supply, and developments like this, will the third world be allowed more cheap energy from oil now?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:41pm
Kea

SPC , I said “other than global communism”…….. but I will play along.

1. How do you intend to enforce that tax on those countries that do not support the Kyoto agreements? What will we do when China & India tell white middle class pricks in rich countries to shove it up their arse? (as they already have). You will enforce your beliefs on them how exactly. Be specific…

2. Your first point was that a tax should be applied on everyone. No exceptions. So I assume this tax will be applied on the “poor countries” as well ? If not why?

Who decides who is poor ? I know, for example, Africa is not poor. They have massive reserves of oil, minerals, precious metals, land, wild life etc. So we can rule them out.

” Given first world governments are struggling with debts…”

Remind us who you want to tax SPC ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:42pm
SPC

Reid, did you read the 8.11 pm link from cha?

They had three blond daughters, Emilie (aged 6), Madeline (aged 4) and Samantha (aged 3). Now they have two, Madeline and Samantha. The elder girl shown in the photo with Obama is quite obviously Madeline. The family portrait of all three girls was apparently taken in 2010, when Emilie was about the same age that Madeline is now. Obviously the dress is a hand-me-down.

http://metabunk.org/threads/1054-Debunked-Emilie-Parker-Still-Alive-after-Sandy-Hook?s=fb4c71c39e0a22adc5adbbc8a349b13f
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:46pm
mikenmild

Methinks TheContrarian should give up on Reid. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:48pm
Kea

The purpose is to establish a market incentive to use scarce carbon resources…. without dependence on affording carbon.

Oh and SPC, you do know that “Carbon” means organic in that context ….. don’t you ? All known organic life is carbon based. But I am sure you know that…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:48pm
TheContrarian

“TC try not to be so hysterical”

Don’t mistake incredulity and skepticism for your surfeit of youtube videos, which constitute your only evidence, for ‘hysteria’.

You fail to meet this point:
So they are all in on it? So the whole community is somehow in on this? The coroner, The parents, The Nurse – they all know people and people know then but somehow you believe that these actors have come into this community and pretended and not one fucking person has noticed this, from the community and people that know these people personally, apart from people on youtube. And that the parents of these children are actors and not part of this relatively small community and no-one from the community has said “Hang on, I have never seen this person before?”

The hysteria belongs to you. Someone’s opinion of what constitutes ‘proper grieving’ is evidence of nothing. Not to mention the sheer number of people involved for this to have to work does not work nor cannot work for the situation you have presented.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:49pm
SPC

Kea, you are either terminally thick or just playing the moron.

You don’t know what a carbon tax on tradeable goods is? Really?

It is an effect an import tariff applied at the country where the export is sent. Those countries such as China cannot avoid it if they trade with other nations applying it.

Common trade rules are not communism, nor are market incentives.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:55pm
SPC

Kea

1. if you think a carbon tax is increasing tax on the rich nations, think again it is a global tax and it would finance existing commitments by a few nations that have already been made.

It’s advantage is that a global tax is a more effective market incentive tool.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 9:59pm
Kea

SPC, sorry mate, but what you outlined is global communism and communism at its worst. You even made it plain that countries should be forced to comply, though you have avoided saying how.

At least you had the guts to answer. I am glad you did answer, because it is an example of what is really behind the all this AGW nonsense.

Why could you not be more honest and simply say: White people owe a duty of care to brown people & we should care for the environment more.

See it is not that hard is it ?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:06pm
Reid

Reid, did you read the 8.11 pm link from cha?

Yes I did SPC and it may be true, Emilie may not be the girl on Obama’s lap. So what?

Someone’s opinion of what constitutes ‘proper grieving’ is evidence of nothing.

TC as I said in the beginning I haven’t looked at Sandy Hook beyond the superficial because it doesn’t interest me. The reason it doesn’t is because to me, false flags is de rigeur, I see them all the time and this is just another one: i.e. it’s not the first one I’ve ever noticed and therefore while we’re discussing that tonight notice I didn’t bring it up, Fletch did, I merely chipped in because sometimes someone will take it up. Therefore I’m not super-fascinated in providing you or anyone with all the clues because while I could gather them and make them into a coherent picture if I wanted to, I can’t be arsed. This is because I learned long ago you can’t make someone see something they aren’t emotionally equipped to see. No matter what the evidence.

Re: “opinion,” if you as a human doesn’t know what a real person who lost a child 2 days looks like vs those people on those videos, then you haven’t lived much life. Such judgements TC are less opinion and more informed judgement. But of course if you’re not emotionally equipped to deal with the logical conclusion if you do indeed determine that yes, they look like they’re acting, then there’s little point in you even exploring the question.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:06pm
TheContrarian

Arguing with you about who, in your opinion, is actually grieving is a waste of time. You have failed to actually address the substantive questions I have raised (repeated below) and relied upon your idea of what constitutes human grief. From this I can only conclude you are more willing to hold on to your subjective opinions of how people should act instead of logical, skeptical inquiry….

“So they are all in on it? So the whole community is somehow in on this? The coroner, The parents, The Nurse – they all know people and people know then but somehow you believe that these actors have come into this community and pretended and not one fucking person has noticed this, from the community and people that know these people personally, apart from people on youtube. And that the parents of these children are actors and not part of this relatively small community and no-one from the community has said “Hang on, I have never seen this person before?””
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:14pm
Kea

. if you think a carbon tax is increasing tax on the rich nations, think again it is a global tax

Ok so we DO impose a tax on the poor countries trying to get off their knees. Glad we cleared that up. How will you enforce that on them ?

I have another idea. You seem to think the rich countries are the biggest co2 emitters and you told us they are in debt. How about those poor countries pay back all that money they have been given, so the rich (yet with massive debt !) countries can invest in “Green Energy” ?

See how silly it is SPC ? Socialism does not work. In fact, socialist countries have terrible environmental records, as well as appalling human rights records.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:17pm
Fletch

Contrarian, they are a very weird community then, anyway.
Did you see the interview with the coroner? make inappropriate comments and joking etc?
And that weird guy who took the 6 kids into his home (whom some people refer to as the worst actor).

I’m not a huge believer in conspiracy stuff like 9/11 etc etc
Do I believe this is a conspiracy? Probably not, but it certainly is weird – from the father going straight from joking around into his little grieving piece to the school nurse getting a complete makeover to appear on TV – these people are strange.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:18pm
SPC

Kea, that you cannot see the difference between Kyoto and a global carbon tax is bizarre enough. But that you think global trade rules are communism is truly bizarre.

It’s interesting that you insist on implying there is some white race privilege being sustained by opposing any action in response to global warming. Especially when a global carbon tax reduces the advantage of transferring production to countries such as China that still heavily use black carbon for energy production.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:22pm
TheContrarian

Fletch, so now the whole community is strange? The more people involved, the less the conspiracy can work.
This is stupid, Based upon subjective opinions by the posters of youtube.

100’s if not 1000’s of people involved and the only people raising concerns are a few youtube users and some dude who thinks he is the messiah.

A very robust theory we have here.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:24pm
SPC

Fletch, it is was a private grief on public display for the American media, the people were in shock yet had attention on their little community for the first time ever.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:24pm
Griff

Right now

(e.g the latest UKMO projecting essentially flat temps for another 5 years) hold then make that 10 years.

I posted the link to bring to your attention that the climate variable called the southern osculation has a known effect on climate. We can not predict what the southern osculation Will do next year but we do know the effects it has on global temperature in the past tense
This effect is one of the variables In met services estimation of climate range
As such met services slope from the unusual el nino in 1998 should be taken to a projected point of the climate modal which would including this effect.

Adding the +.3 97-98 el nino to the base of .43s giving us a 0.46 anomaly in the met prediction.

A proper evaluation from the met service projection is a slope of 0.3degrees per decade.

Met service predicting no rise is not supported by evaluation of their model

A graph of el nino against temperature can be found here
http://www.john-daly.com/soi-temp.htm.
papers for theory include
Waiting for Cooling (Fawcett & Jones 2008).
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011.)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:25pm
Kea

10 Characteristics of a Conspiracy Theorist

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” – piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://skypeassholes.com/node/6308
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:27pm
TheContrarian

@Kea – good stuff.

Also known as JAQing off

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:29pm
SPC

Kea, the point is designing a system that applies to all equally, yet creates an incentive for lower use of carbon in production. A carbon tax advantages production not using carbon for energy generation. It creates an incentive to invest in better intensity (less carbon use to production output etc).
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:29pm
Rex Widerstrom

A teenage boy is getting ready to take his girlfriend to the prom. First he goes to rent a tux, but there’s a long tux line at the shop and it takes forever.

Next, he has to get some flowers, so he heads over to the florist and there’s a huge flower line there. He waits forever but eventually gets the flowers.

Then he heads out to rent a limo. Unfortunately, there’s a large limo line at the rental office, but he’s patient and gets the job done.

Finally, the day of the prom comes. The two are dancing happily and his girlfriend is having a great time. When the song is over, she asks him to get her some punch, so he heads over to the punch table and there’s no punchline.

No, please, hold your applause…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:31pm
TheContrarian

Fuck Rex, you’re killing me.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:32pm
Fletch

Although I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, let me ask you: if you were a Govt wanting to ban guns in America, what would be the best way to do it? To get the sympathies of the people behind you?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:36pm
SPC

So the conspiracy theory, that the American government wants to prevent the people from defending themselves from their own government by limiting access to weapons, leads to another – that mass killings with guns are a government ploy against the right to bear arms.

Now what is self-defeating, is paranoid people being allowed gun ownership – so who starts these conspiracy theories?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:38pm
Kea

SPC, if China & India ( the worlds biggest countries) decide they want no part of this (they don’t) how do you think it should be enforced ?

If they make trade agreements with other smaller & developing countries, how will you enforce the global carbon tax on all parties ?

I want to know how you intend to enforce compliance on those countries that do not support AGW theory ?

Developing countries were not obliged to make cuts, but were to benefit from cash from rich nations to help them avoid a high-carbon route to prosperity. Globally, emissions have increased by around 50% since 1990, although that growth has come mostly in poorer countries that did not sign up to Kyoto – notably China whose emissions went up 286.6% from 2.5m metric tonnes to 9.7m metric tonnes.

You see SPC, it does not work. But thanks for the suggestions. It is more than cut n’ paste Griff ever managed.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:40pm
Griff

An interesting point came up at ss today
The so called fart tax the national and act stopped was a direct tax a produces levy on a per head stock
The component of carbon emissions added to the natural cycle by farming is not grass or number of stock its fertilizer
As the added carbon input into farming is contained within fertilizer added to pasture the only market driven way to tax so called farts
is to tax the fertilizer not the stock
This has added effect of penalizing the use of surplus fertilizer and inefficient farming practices as well as taxing fairly the carbon input on any given farm directly.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:42pm
Reid

100′s if not 1000′s of people involved and the only people raising concerns are a few youtube users and some dude who thinks he is the messiah.

TC this is the useful idiot in you talking. It’s the same argument used by people who don’t see how 911 could have been done therefore it must have happened the way the media has explained it. What it really is, is denial. It’s an excuse to ignore what your eyes are looking at. Because you’re too emotionally disturbed by following the logical trail of the evidence. It would overturn your world view. So you pretend the evidence is trite/doesn’t exist. By pretending that instead of the evidence, the answer lies in statements like you made. Which is not assessing evidence at all. Quite the contrary.

And many above are just like you.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:43pm
Griff

Jan 5 (Reuters) – China’s biggest energy-consuming companies are likely to face a direct tax on carbon dioxide emissions by 2015, the Xinhua-backed Economic Information Daily reported on Thursday, citing government sources.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:45pm
Kea

Sorry SPC, but it gets worse. Much worse.

Only 37 of 194 nations signed the treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol, which expires December 31 – and several countries may withdraw their consent. That means the new agreement is legally non-binding and covers only at best 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

… the United States, Brazil, Russia, India, China, Canada, Japan and other major emitters refused to sign, and the new treaty sets no binding emission limits.

http://www.masterresource.org/2012/12/doha-defeat-but-not-over/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:49pm
SPC

Griff, that is because China itself sees the sense of improving the intensity of their production. First it means their own resources last longer and second it means they adapt to being more efficient before the global market requires this.

Griff, if animals eat grass that has no fertilizer on it, is there no methane release? Really?
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:51pm
SPC

Kea, the current system is a disaster, allowing it to die and be replaced by a global carbon tax is not the end of the world.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:55pm
Kea

The international effort to curb man-made emissions of greenhouse gases – as enshrined in the Kyoto protocol – is a miserable failure that needs to be swept away and replaced….says the study, published in the journal Nature.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-say-kyoto-protocol-is-outdated-failure-397801.html

So much for global agreements !

Still deeply curious about how belief in AGW will be enforced on sovereign states who don’t support it…
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:58pm
SPC

Griff, more efficient use of fertilizer is occuring now as a way to reduce farm costs – placing a tax on the fertilizer they still use to encourage more of this might be seen as a little perverse. Education as to how they can farm better while using less fertilizer may be the way to go – the savings will motivate those yet to look into this.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:58pm
SPC

Kea, Kyoto was never a global agreement.

If the WTO adopts a global trade rule – related to carbon tax on all tradeable goods, that is what it becomes.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 10:59pm
TheContrarian

@Fletch

Mass shootings in the USA have happened under every government since Clinton and probably before. This transcends political advantage. Not only that but each shooting leads to a massive increase in gun sales. If anyone has anything to gain it isn’t the govt. – it’s the gun manufacturers. So why aren’t you blaming them for they have the biggest take in this, not the government.

@Reid – sorry buddy, you are aren’t addressing any of the very reasonable points I have asked of you so you can safely be ignored now. Thanks for playing though.
” following the logical trail of the evidence” You have given no logical trail of evidence.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:01pm
Kea

SPC, your missing my point, either by accident or design.

Global agreements only work if countries actually honour them. They may decide to not honour those agreements at any time. As we have already seen, actions matter, not agreements. Signing bits of paper at high profile media shows is not going to lower emissions one bit.

If a country does not honour an agreement, what do you suggest is done about it ? And remember who we are talking about here, some of the most powerful countries on earth !
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:08pm
SPC

Kea, no. WTO rules are abided by. The problem would be getting the WTO members to make the rule.

A global carbon tax is the best option, but it will only occur then countries decide to do something.

A policy that resulted in finite carbon resources being used over 100 not 50 or 150 not 75 years, means slower AGW. And this gives us more time to better develop energy alternatives.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:15pm
Griff

The major political force rising in this country is the greens. The polarization of the AGW debate coming directly from the right in America is creating a situation when all those in denial are doing is allowing the far left green movement to capture the high ground. This is directly resulting in the election of those who will impose lunatic socialist solves for our problem.

The election result in the USA can firmly be placed on the fringe tea party and their conservative stupidity. Included in this would be the result of sandy, the record temperatures, and the drought making people reevaluate their commitment towards the Republican party

To stick your head in the sand and squawk loudly is not going to help our aim of a free market society instead it enables the socialist to inflict state controlled targeted spending on airhead ill conceived green elephants and forced adoption of public transport .

I did once post that we should tell bluff to fuck of
the reason for this is the bluff smelter captures a considerable amount of cost transfer by its cheap electricity deal
We are subsidizing an industry to retain unproductive jobs a lefty trait if there ever was one. Telling bluff to f off or pay a realistic market rate may effect a few protected jobs It will have a significant impact on our energy mix making us look good in the eyes of the world. Making any further effort of New Zealand to reduce carbon emissions unneeded we would need to burn less oil or coal to produce our electricity. As well as cancelling a job and profit guarantee that costs us money directly
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:22pm
axeman

Meanwhile in Australia the Gweens are losing voters as their agenda is exposed. Over there, those people are not “harmless idealists.” They are not even genuine environmentalists. They are dangerous ideologues driven not by reason or intellectual debate, but by zealotry.

Hopefully we will be able to expose the New Zild watermelons in time. 🙂

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/greens-are-losing-voters-as-their-agenda-is-exposed/story-e6frg7bo-1226554651368
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:36pm
Griff

Griff, if animals eat grass that has no fertilizer on it, is there no methane release? Really?
The added input is carbon produced and transported fertilizer. The rest of farming is inputs/outputs that are part of the natural cycle
Yes cows fart but the proportion that can be attributed to man is the fertilizer we add. You can add effects of methane the fact that are native birds dont fart etc put you are making a very complex discussion that would soon exhaust our knowledge.
All that could be calculated into any tax regime to give a true cost per unit
I am just proposing a form of tax that when we are forced to add it is sane market driven and user pays that also satisfies the environmental aims of such a tax.

That china has not sighed Kyoto is beside the point The USA is the biggest major emitter per capita until they sign up to any carbon mitigation scheme the chance of the rest of the world doing so is remote.
China is no longer a developing state their usage per capita is level with Europe and growing rapidly
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:38pm
SPC

Griff, allowing the smelter to run down line by line has already been proposed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10831956
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:42pm
Griff

finite carbon resources
There is no peak oil
NZ has enough coal to run for hundreds of years
its as the easy resources are used the cost will rise to reflect the cost of extraction And or conversion (Gas to fuel coal to fuel etc)
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:44pm
axeman

Not happy with a Carbon Tax? Is it because a Carbon Tax is regressive, hurts the poor, and disadvantages American businesses not to mention that it is NOT needed and the US Congress didn’t read the bill

So what else could be the matter with it?

Don’t Be Fooled By the Meritless Carbon Tax
By Diana Furchtgott-Roth, January 15, 2013

The American Taxpayer Relief Act, passed by Congress on January 1 after a day’s negotiation between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, should be the death knell for the carbon tax, the favorite of many academic economists for restructuring the tax system.

The method by which the new tax law was passed offers little hope that Congress is capable, much less likely, to craft thoughtful tax solutions. Since the Bush tax cuts were passed in 2001, politicians have known that taxes were scheduled to rise. Surely, one might imagine, years of careful planning would inform the next tax law.

Yet Congress passed permanent tax laws at the last moment, without reading the bill. One must wonder what Senators and House members knew of the detailed language of the new tax law, such as provisions favoring special interests such as Hollywood, Nascar, and green energy.

In the past, Congress considered carefully new tax laws such as the Bush tax cuts in 2001 or the Tax Reform Act of 1986. No longer.

This is especially relevant to the carbon tax, because a quickly-passed carbon tax in the hands of Congress would be just another add-on levy, with exemptions for friends and punishments for enemies.

Proponents of the carbon tax include a bipartisan group of economic professors such as University of California’s Robert Reich, Harvard’s Martin Feldstein, Edward Glaeser, and Gregory Mankiw, Columbia University’s Joseph Stiglitz, and Cornell University’s Robert Frank.

The conservative American Enterprise Institute has held several conferences on the merits of the carbon tax, the latest on November 13. It featured Gilbert Metcalf, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment and Energy at the Department of the Treasury, who has written extensively on the design of a carbon tax while a professor at Tufts University.

What is a carbon tax? Why do so many academics love it? And why does the new tax law prove that it’s an idea whose time has not come?

The love affair with carbon taxes comes from a concern that energy use is raising global temperatures and causing global warming. No matter that by many measures global temperatures have not increased over the past decade. No matter that American emissions in 2012 were the lowest since 1992. No matter that only 16 percent of global carbon emissions are caused by America, and that reductions would have little effect on global temperatures.

America has substantial energy reserves, and our air is continually getting cleaner as newer technology takes the place of old. Energy in its many forms confers benefits of comfort and mobility, and if consumers are willing to pay the price, they should use it.

Proponents claim that in taxing carbon dioxide, Congress would take action to reduce energy use, while raising revenue that would permit a reduction of income tax rates.

A carbon tax, which would discourage energy consumption, would be simpler and less intrusive than a cap-and-trade system, considered in the 111th Congress. Under that approach, the government would set limits on the emissions of individual plants-electric utilities, petrochemicals, and others. Emitters would have to buy permits from the government. Plants emitting less than their allowance could sell unneeded permits to those exceeding their limits.

In contrast, a carbon tax raises the price of energy and so discourages consumption without regulation. Some claim that carbon tax rates could be calibrated to be revenue neutral or to yield a net rise in federal tax receipts, with the increment possibly dedicated to reducing deficits.

Treasury Department official Metcalf concluded that a 10 percent rise in the price of energy would result in a 3 percent reduction in consumption. He suggested a tax rate of $15 per ton of CO2.

U.S. carbon emissions in 2012 were about 5.2 billion metric tons, so the Metcalf proposed tax would raise about $78 billion a year, assuming that industrial consumers used the same amount of energy. If, on the other hand, consumers reduced consumption by about 5 percent, a response suggested by the government’s Energy Information Administration, the tax would raise about $74 billion per year.

Such a revenue stream could potentially be used to reduce the deficit, to lower individual tax rates, or to pay off sectors of the economy, such as coal, that are unduly harmed by carbon taxes. Since high income tax rates reduce incentives to work, this could conceivably add to economic efficiency.

While many academic economists see carbon taxes as a substitute for the income tax, many tax policy analysts see the carbon tax as an additional source of revenue. Historically, the income tax has not been lowered as new excise taxes have been brought online. There is little reason to expect the carbon tax will lower income taxes where other new tax revenues have failed.

Moreover, carbon taxes are regressive. Since low-income people use more energy as a percentage of their income than high-income people, low-income households were bear a higher share of the carbon tax burden. Those policymakers who seek to avoid regressive taxes, including much of Congress, might add complex income transfers to low-income groups to lessen their tax burden.

This is not simple, because many low-income earners are not required to file returns, and they would have to do so in order to be identified and compensated.

Another problem is that carbon-intensive sectors, such as coal, would be the biggest losers under the new tax. Politicians from coal-producing regions are influential in Congress and they would demand a share of revenues.

Finally, a carbon tax in America raises the prices of energy-intensive goods relative to imports from countries without carbon taxes. One effect of a carbon tax is that Americans would increasingly prefer to buy imports of energy-intensive goods, and American firms would correspondingly lose business. Proponents of the tax suggest putting tariffs on imports in proportion to their carbon content so that American companies would not be at a disadvantage. But the precise quantities are complex to calculate, and tariffs might be illegal under World Trade Organization regulations.

So, for a carbon tax to make our tax system more efficient, many fine-tuned adjustments would be necessary. First, its revenues would have to be used to lower income taxes. Second, its negative effects on low-income Americans and on energy-intensive regions would have to be ameliorated. Third, border adjustments would have to be made so that domestic goods were not disfavored. Each of these adjustments would require careful analysis and formulation.

But the lesson from the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 shows that Congress is incapable of crafting a carbon tax with these attributes, even if they are given a decade’s warning. Under our system of government, any tax on carbon would be an additional tax, without the offsets that make it so attractive to academics. It would hurt the poor and raise prices in America compared to overseas.

A carbon tax would just be another regressive revenue raiser, costing $75 billion a year, hurting the poor, disadvantaging American manufactures, and all without any effect on global temperatures. After the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, anyone who thinks otherwise is naïve.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:51pm
SPC

Griff, my objection to a fertilizer tax is as I stated – use of fertilizer is already in decline as any cost that can be avoided by minimising use will be. I am not that supportive of a fart tax, just referring to that the ETS focused on this.

IMO the best way to manage increasing farm emissions (transfer to dairying) are by minimum farm standards as to environment practice. This on the one hand protects waterways and also effectively means constraints on stocking levels.

In the past decade rising land value places upward pressure on stock levels – this creates a periodic crisis, whenever weather is not optimum for stock farming. Some contraint on stock levels, places a lid on land values beofre things get really out of hand.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:52pm
Griff

The Calls have been echoed on here I was just pointing to a sane right wing reason for doing so not Janettes make jobs processing a reduced output green spin
Meh if it was me pulling the strings with no constituents to keep happy
I would do national sell down of soes to offshore investors. Then close bluff and buy the assets back at a reduced rate 😆
The investors would think we are arse holes put it would make the current acount look real good.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:53pm
SPC

Griff

Of course there is peak oil, it is just that the arrival of when has been deferred by the arrival of shale oil and gas.

Saying we have enough coal for hundreds of years is like saying that Saudi Arabia and Norway have enough oil for centuries – but this only applies if no one exports anything.

The earlier we use renewables the longer finite resources will last. And the slower the rate of warming.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 16, 2013 11:58pm
SPC

Griff. that is devious, it would be like suggesting to the government they cut road user charges, before they bid to buy back rail and then after doing so, then increase road user charges. As someone did apparently.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2013 12:02am
Griff

minimum farm standards as to environment practice
Adding a layer of bureaucracy and encouraging slight of hand minimization and evasion. The more rules the more fiscal drag they create. Paper shufflers paradise
Taxing fertilizer encourages efficient use and is transparent unavoidable cheap to implement and directly user pays
It would directly encourage efficient use of fertilizer the major environmental problem after stock waterway damage
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2013 12:04am
SPC

Griff, a fertilizer tax on someone who had already reduced fertilzer use to the minimum required, is just a tax/added cost to the business.

Just get to the minimum farm standard and operate at a low cost once there.
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2013 12:07am
Griff

Dont scare the horses as soon as you say renewable they bolt for the hills
I lived on renewable energy for six years wind and solar have their place just not if there are cheaper alternatives
Hydro and Geo thermal are where the focus should be They are the glean green energy sources and we if we kill all the greens have plenty of scope to develop more in the future.
The only point of solar and wind is it gives you a good way to fleece investors. There is room for both technology in the future but both are to intermittent for base line on the grid and solar is still to expensive. Diversified generation also has value.

From the right wing perspective
Use the pretext of green generation to loosen the RMAs hold on development the NIMBY and greens will allow it if its sold on allowing green energy to be developed. win win green and more ability to extract other resources as well.

Encourage investment in micro hydro and grid tye solar again by relaxing the rma included with a little push on the grid owners to allow a descent payback for grid tye small generation investment. Both solar and hydro on this scale allow more flexibility in power sources. and small investor involvement. why buy a pious when you can have a house covered in solar panels which makes the whole neighbor hood think you are a green 😆

diversified generation act as a buffer if a major event hits our large generating plants. hence would have a strategic advantage in these shaky islands It also could solve the transmission problems we face with most power capacity in the south and usage in the north
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2013 12:30am
Griff

User pays if you dont add lots of chicken shit it does not run into the waterways. If your farm uses little fertilizer why should you pay a tax for emissions/pollution you are not making.
The present effort to clean the waterways is working you will here the farmers moan but they do realize that some of the old ways like pump ya shit into the creek just are not smart
Its the inspectors mergansers lawyers and general bureaucratic nonsense that a regulatory response attracts that puts me of a legislative response to fertilizer pollution far better to make it a direct tax on the polluting input fertilizerand leave the farmers to work out their cost/benefit of fertilizer use
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2013 12:44am
Manolo

Pulling no punches: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/01/15/nra-obama-ad/
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
January 17, 2013 6:30am

More comments:

‹
1
2

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« Bisley on Armstrong

UNDP slated by its own board »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Highlights

The Kiwis are fleeing
Inflation by term
Houston we have a problem
Our immunisation disaster

Never miss a post

Email Address

Links

Climate Change: Turning the tide
No Right Turn
Point of Order: Buzz from the Beehive - 18/4/24
Breaking Views
A question for you all on those sackings
Not PC
Despair - construction consenting edition
Offsetting Behaviour
A Water Tank Is Not A Fire Risk
No Minister
Daily review 18/04/2024
The Standard
Jones finds $410,000 to help the government muscle in on a spat project
Point of Order
Word of the day
Hompaddock
Again, hate crimes are not necessarily terrorism.
Kiwipolitico
What Time Is The Protest March To The Iranian Embassy?
Utopia
The 4% inflation rate vs thousands of jobs cut highlights a need to redesign the Reserve Bank inflation targets
The Daily Blog
RACIST ADVERTISING
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Is the state coming for churches?
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Super Rugby Predictions for Week 9
Stats Chat
Coalition Promises
NZCPR
Tougher than that
Croaking Cassandra
ABs stripped of 2011 title after try disallowed
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
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz