Who's voting ACT, apart from me?

[Magua]

Do you want; logical environmental policies

Liberatian environmental policies =/= logical. They enevitably fail and require more legislation.

[rainman]

None, because their is no man made climate change its a natural situation, not the first time and wont be the last time the climate has a fluctuation.

Climate change is an excuse to scare people into thinking their is a problem that we need government help to "save our souls" and this will only come in the form of taxes and legislation to gain taxes, such as carbon credit and ETS.......its all B.S

So, lemme get this right:

• You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)
• We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years
• The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.
• The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!
• In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.

If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.

[Jantar]

So, lemme get this right:

...............

If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.

oh dear. How many times do we have to go back over this?

You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)

Yes. The climate is changing. It always has and always will. At the moment it is in a cooling phase consistant with the negative phase of the IPO.

We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years

Yes we do. Around 6% of additional CO2 is emitted by man, but less that 0.05% of all other greenhouse gasses are emitted by man. And CO2 is a very small fraction of all GHGs.

The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.

This is only true if you ignore the research carried out by Beck, and repeated by others since. CO2 levels are high, but not the highest by a long shot, Other GHGs are also high, but not due to man.

The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!

The IPCC are not the ones imposing extra taxes, and if you look at the latest offerings from the IPCC even they are reducing their predictions.

In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.

That would certainly seems to be the latest determination. It started when Mann, Bradley and Hughes had their Hockeystick so debuncked that the IPCC stopped using it. Note it only seems that way, because all the climate scientists who are actually studying climate as opposed to models are now agreeing that global temperature is more closely linked to the IPO and less linked to GHGs.

Incidentally, keeping on top of climate and its effects is part of my job.

[davereid]

Exactly how is putting up my power - petrol - food bills supposed to save the world from China and Americas emissions anyway ?

I can see cold pensioners, kids without lunch, and wealthy traders clipping the trading scheme ticket.

But I can't see the world saved, just a lot of money moved from pocket "A" to pocket "B".

[Quasievil]

So, lemme get this right:

• You recognise there is climate change (to be fair, incredibly rapid arctic melting may be too much of a clue to avoid, leave alone the methane recently venting out of the permafrost at 100x background levels)
• We emit lots of CO2 and other greenhouse gases - that's pretty easy to verify, we've been measuring this for years
• The last time these gas concentrations were as high was during the Eocene. That's a while ago, so, yeah climate fluctuations happen, but this one is pretty exceptional.
• The IPCC, who stand to gain absolutely nothing by raising "taxes and legislation to gain taxes", are all in on the conspiracy. As are a bunch of scientific experts with a wide ranging set of political preferences. Everyone is out to get your money that the wicked government stole from you. Bastards!
• In fact, every scientist since Arrhenius who's raised the issue of climate change is wrong, and you are right. Despite them being real climate scientists and all. And you, well, probably not.

If there's a word for thinking that way I bet it's hard to spell.

You say there is "no man-made climate change" - that's a pretty bodacious claim. Not that the primary influence is not man, but that there is no influence by man. I'll bet you a cold beer that you have zero credible evidence to back this up.

Yup basically mate.

Gore stupid movie is one of the biggest pieces of propaganda the world has EVER known, most took it hook line and sinker.

It isnt the first time earth has warmed up and it wont be the last, the current hysteria is a crock and a major con all structured around making money...........examples Kyoto agreement , Emissions trading scam, Carbo trading etc etc.

where does the money go ??????

[oldrider]

Sheesh, who would you want in power then if you had a choice? Genghis Khan?

My preference (choice) would be closer to "Liberterianz" with "Social credit" monitary reforms in place.

Not ever likely to happen (in my lifetime)

The mess we are in now wouldn't have eventuated if my "preference" was in place. John.

[Magua]

where does the money go ??????

A cap is set at so many tonnes per year. Some companies will be above this target, some will be below. The companies emitting CO2 over what the cap allows will have to buy credits from the companies with excess credits, those that are emitting less than the cap. Rather than a flat tax it's an incentive to do something about emissions, reduce them, and you need to buy less credits.

[Quasievil]

A cap is set at so many tonnes per year. Some companies will be above this target, some will be below. The companies emitting CO2 over what the cap allows will have to buy credits from the companies with excess credits, those that are emitting less than the cap. Rather than a flat tax it's an incentive to do something about emissions, reduce them, and you need to buy less credits.

..............+ gst ?

[Kaituna]

Bring on a couple more Mt Vesuvious or Taupo eruptions I reckon. That will fuck up the GHG predictions. Try taxing that you bastards! Biggest piece of shit legislation to spew forth from the looney pc fringe leftist commies.

[skidMark]

Air conditioning?

Jrandom for the presidency!

[Magua]

..............+ gst ?

Well that's how it's MEANT to work, don't know if they've perverted it with extra taxes here.

[Swoop]

So what ideas do you have to address climate change?

Cordura or a one-piece oversuit.

"global warming". Global taxing would be closer to the truth.

[davereid]

A cap is set at so many tonnes per year. Some companies will be above this target, some will be below. The companies emitting CO2 over what the cap allows will have to buy credits from the companies with excess credits, those that are emitting less than the cap. Rather than a flat tax it's an incentive to do something about emissions, reduce them, and you need to buy less credits.

A great idea... except that LIVING is a major source of C02.

So, Nations like NZ that have a large proportion of GDP dependent on living animals, farming and food production will get to buy credits from Russia and China, (Who are exempt or get extra credits as they are "developing" nations.)

And somehow, even though the horribly C02 producing sheep, got their carbon from grass, we can't claim grass as a credit.

Cos it doesn't count, cos its TOO SHORT and it NOT A TREE.

Something stinks when the basics of life, like food production are BAD and must be TAXED to save us all from the MONSTER that no one has seen except the emperor.

Still on the bright side, it doesnt matter how expensive food or petrol get, I can afford it.

And my broker has instructions to BUY BUY BUY when shares in NZs trading company come up.

[Magua]

Cos it doesn't count, cos its TOO SHORT and it NOT A TREE.

Well isn't that rediculous. A sink is a sink, isn't it? What's the reasoning behind not including grass? :S

[Ocean1]

Well isn't that rediculous. A sink is a sink, isn't it? What's the reasoning behind not including grass? :S

Whatever the justification it's still a multi-national trade agreement.
The terms of such ALWAYS favour those countries that have the largest markets.

The fact that NZ is, however you measure it, a rather large mitigating influence on carbon balance has absolutely nothing to do with the deals struck at Kyoto, or since.
It's about financial advantage, it always is.