This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Climategate

Jump to new

No comment about the brownshirt tactics in the first video, yet makes much of Monckton's use of common garden variety of English language metaphor.

Very balanced comment there tj.

We are all cognitively biased to some extent. Some are so biased you have to wonder about their state of mind. I am genuinely concerned for you tj, if that the best you can do and believe you have some sort of point.
 
OK this is degrading into personal pot shots. I'm giving myself an uppercut and a request that others cease the personal stuff as well.

Let's just stick to the science/logic/politics etc.
 

well i didn't bother commenting on the first video as it was just silly it didn't really have that great a point, i actually found more convincing videos than the first video simply by clicking on "whats related" on youtube to the first video. Hence i didn't bother commenting on that one. And i already stated i couldn't be bothered having this argument with as your mind is already made up, so we are both wasting eachother's time (which basically means i'm not going to tell you you are wrong anymore, i just enjoy the entertainment you give me).

I only commented on lord M's word as i found it amusing. Nuff said
 

Lol, and the best i can do? i am concerned for you if you beleive i was actually trying to make any serious point/debate at all in that post, i was merely saying how amusing it was i thought that was pretty ****in obvious. LOL
 
tj,

Fair enough, you have the right of reply to my post. For my part, the kindergarten verbal jousting stops here; we are well outside ASF's code of conduct, my bad. I suggest you do likewise.
 
If you think this won't happen here, that's foolish. Frankly, it is obvious to me that it is ALREADY happening. ETS in it's current form is a sticky sticky mess from an environmental and financial perspective. I don't like it. We should have a hard rolling tax on emissions (not just carbon) which increases YoY and by usage as well as a tarriff on any imported products which are not meeting stringent emissions rules. That way the polluters pay and they can't just offshore to China to sell our resources back to us.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=118953


As a trader, every day I see government manipulation in the currency markets which FAILS ALMOST EVERY TIME. For example, the Bank of Japan and Swiss National Bank intervene in spot markets often to weaken their respective currency against USD and Euros. But it never works. The moral of the story is: hard market lessons are like a bandaid, you need to get it over with as soon as possible, let the market set the price because in the end it will anyway.

To me this situation is identical. We need to step in now and set some hard rules on how this will work from which there can be no loopholing or escape. We need to set a dollar value on the environment, and make no mistake that value will end up being higher than anyone is willing to currently pay. But wiggle all you want, sooner or later we will be paying the dollar value of the environment, willingly or unwillingly.

The market is human nature, you can't **** with it. You can try but it never works. The environment is nature, you can't **** with it. You can try but it never works. All that will happen is the price we strove so hard to avoid paying will be extracted from us down the line by nature in what will probably not be a nice way.
 
I posted this on the Al Gore thread.

Lateline on ABC TV tonight, beginning 10.15 pm, will have a panel discussion on climate change. I didn't catch all the participants but one is Ian Plimer, so it might be worth watching.
 
Sinner, if we should "put a price on the environment" how do you suggest this happen fairly?

Australia is widely quoted to have the highest per capita emissions, but this needs to take into account our extraordinary droughts and bushfires, something not experienced by e.g. Europe for the most part.

There are so many differences and anomalies between nations that (perhaps in my ignorance) I can't see it would work on a fair basis. I understand this is presently one of the many sticking points at Copenhagen.
 
Strongly agreed although I note that there is not one single physical product that would not be subject to such a tariff since everything requires energy to manufacture and/or transport.

Given that globalisation always was largely a play on cheap energy, it seems fitting that we'd see a reintroduction of tariffs as energy prices rise due to both supply constraints and environmental concerns.
 
Soft Dough said:
the forum doesn't exist, bit like something else really.

I mean are the Y2K, ozone layer, alien invasion, meteor destruction, WMD and man on moon threads not enough to keep you satisfied?
Click to expand...

Y2K - Hoax. Those who didn't take action "suffered" the same "consequences" as those who did with very few exceptions.

Ozone layer - Probably true. Works in the lab and corresponds with observed ozone levels in the stratosphere.

Alien invasion - Conspiracy.

Meteor destruction - Possible.

WMD - Hoax as part of a broader plan to continue access to cheap oil.

Man on the moon - Anyone's guess.
 

I dunno exactly how you would quantify it J, but to me it is obvious that right now, we are not paying ANYTHING on environmental costs and this cost doesn't look set to rise until it is extracted from us involuntarily by the environment (in the form of poor health due to pollution, degraded environment, ecosystem feedback loops, etc). In fact we probably taking out leverage on future environment for relatively short term dollar gain.
 



All I am saying is put a notional $ value on pollution (for all non-essential services etc excluding hospitals and such) and the market will work everything out itself.

Environmentally unsustainable projects will fold up and die, yes. Barnaby Joyce is looking at me right now with a knife in his hand. But sooner or later (my guess is that the necessity of energy will make this a sooner) the market will provide new, better opportunities. Environmentally sustainable projects will unfold and fly. We will take some pain in the short term but only due to our past folly of ignoring this $ value (which has ALWAYS existed, we just ignored it previously). In the long term things will work out fine. I don't subscribe to the statements that with a notional $ value placed on pollution our economy (or any economy) will collapse into an irreparable state. To do so would place almost no faith in the human species of which I am a part.

As an example. Yes everything would be subject to the "tariff" but what is the trriff for a locally grown, in season tomato driven from a hydroponic garden on the edge of Melbourne to the inner city versus an out of season tomato stored in a Woolworths warehouse somewhere for 6 months before being driven across the state to the inner city?

Yes, the cost of Woolworths tomatos will go up. But the local farmer will receive relational increase in sales allowing her or him a better economy of scale and price competition. Without Woolworths to contend with for tomatos (who klnows, they might even stock the product) they might even be able to sell for cheaper than before!
 
Give the bank executives your mobile phone number (in case you're in Canberra for crisis talks with Barnaby :arsch so they can call you for advice on growing tomatoes and possibly some guidance on currency investment.
 
Christopher Monckton interviews Greenpeace Activist in Copenhagen:

 

Attachments

  • mann_piccola_letter1.jpg
    110.6 KB · Views: 19
  • mann_piccola_letter2.jpg
    108.7 KB · Views: 11
Some interesting quotes (stolen from another forum)


You are being played folks!!
 

You are absolutely right Wayne. We are being played.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...