My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Look how much money Green groups are making from climate scare | Main | Railway engineer tag catches on »

Comments

David Baigent

First bit of factual evidence I have seen that the Carbon Industry is "stillborn".

Bloody good job.

Actoids should note that NZX and John Key speak the same language.

CM take note. You are naked in full sight.

David Suzuki

Maybe instead of making money off the carbon scam, the global warming alarmists can cash in on their used sex toys:

http://www.sextoyrecycling.com

Big Green has been screwing us for so long they've probably worn them all out by now.

CM

Davis, please quote where I have stated support for this market.
Alternatively, STFU.

David Baigent

CM, Almost without exception your entire litany of links and content of your coments has been advocacy for Carbon control.

All readers of this blog know that.

Bok

CM there is nothing as sad as a wannabe who backtracks..

If you want I can go and get link after link of you supporting carbon trading and the engineer, only to now decide you were never a fan..?

You are indeed sillier than your posts suggest.

Fletch

The AGW argument is unraveling faster than a wicker lounge chair that a cat sharpens it's claws on every day.

Maurice J

As I have said for a long time now the Carbon Scam will end in tears. Climategate has sped the process up, so do not be the clown left holding the Carbon Credits, they will be worth Zip Zero faster than a speeding bullet.

CM

>>>If you want I can go and get link after link of you supporting carbon trading and the engineer, only to now decide you were never a fan..?<<<

I want. Go.

>>>CM, Almost without exception your entire litany of links and content of your coments has been advocacy for Carbon control.<<<

Not the same thing is it David. Fail.

Bok

I had five minutes and with bing the following came up CM There is another 39 more that I have not bothered putting up or reading...

CM on Carbon tax trading etc.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/what-al-gore-and-nzs-niwa-have-in-common.html?cid=6a00d8341c51bc53ef0120a73ad14e970b#comment-6a00d8341c51bc53ef0120a73ad14e970b

CM and credibility
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/groundhog-day-at-hot-topic.html?cid=6a00d8341c51bc53ef0120a6caac6f970b#comment-6a00d8341c51bc53ef0120a6caac6f970b
CM on Rudd and his brilliant pesuit of ETS
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/act-blasts-nats-calls-public-mtg-over-ets-scheme.html?cid=6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875f6386e970c#comment-6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875f6386e970c
CM opens his mouth and puts his foot in it history tells us
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/climategate-finally-hits-network-news.html?cid=6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875fa6964970c#comment-6a00d8341c51bc53ef012875fa6964970c
CM opens mouth and makes assetions that is proven wrong, shows total lack of knowledge and understanding..http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/climategate-crus-jones-steps-down-temporarily.html?cid=6a00d8341c51bc53ef012876046920970c#comment-6a00d8341c51bc53ef012876046920970c

CM

Nothing at all in that lot about my support for that carbon trading market. Another Bok fail. Another case of Bok making sh*t up.

CM

Obviously it goes without saying that you were unable to find a single quote.....

I can see why you're a fan of Ian's though, you've got that art of misrepresentation and distortion down to a fine art. None of what you promise is delivered in any of the links. Not even close. I guess you were hoping that nobody would follow them.

One thing Ian gets right in Air Con - when you keep resorting to making things up, you know you're case is weak. Of course the irony is that he describes himself and his fans (i.e. you). Still, it's fun to see.

Bok

Right, you give a man (generous ,Bokkie , generous, this person has no interest in actually getting out there and doing, he loves just yakking about things.) what he asks for and then he tries to spin it. Okay you are right. I failed (don't you just love sad arses who try to seem hip, "epic fail" ) I failed to realise that proof to a fundamentalist like yourself, is just something that irritates. So I am going to turn my attention and to, and chat with something that has more integrity , knowledge and validity than you...

"Now piece of stick, what do you....."

Ian Wishart

Who was it that said this?

Exactly right Thomas. The irony is that the right-wingers preach the free market, but have conveniently and hypocritically always been against doing anything to fix the significant market failure of not accounting for carbon emissions. They want to have it both ways, but they'd never admit it

I'll have to step in and partially defend CM on claims that CM has been a rabid supporter of ETS schemes, I haven't found any evidence of a preponderance of comments in that vein (possibly because I haven't posted much on ETS schemes), but I have included above and below some of his previous comments.

Like this:

As I can saying, free market fans should be in favour of studying climate and the effects of carbon so that a significant market failure can be corrected, and we can all stop subsidising polluters. Don't these people always argue for 'user-pays' and 'letting the true costs determine supply and demand' etc etc? Why the rank hypocrisy on this issue? It's almost like they want us to get......pickled

Or this:

CM said:
>>>>CO2 trading is an artificial market. Left to its own devices there wouldn't be a CO2 market.<<<< A true market factors in ALL costs and allocates them where they are incurred. However we all know there are negative externalities (e.g. pollution) that the 'natural' market doesn't include. So in most cases there is market failure. So as a society we often articifically impose additional costs in an attempt to correct for market failure. Obviously it makes no sense for a company to obtain a superior market position by taking an easier polluting route and selling at a subsequent cheaper price than a competitor. But this essentially is what you guys advocate across the board - that the true costs should not be incurred. Again, can you provide a defence for staunchly defending market failure?

And this:

Ah, of course, only the market knows the true value of something. Oh, except carbon. That doesn't have a value. Apparently that's perfectly acceptable gross market failure. I'm certainly no Marxist but I'm yet to hear any sort of defence for the hypocrisy of staunchly defending gross market failure....

I liked this next one though, (which has nothing to do with ETS) particularly because Phil Jones in his BBC interview admits that the "rate" of warming now is the same as at two previous times in the past 100 years alone, meaning there is nothing special about the "rate" of warming as suggested here by CM:

Timescales are certainly very important in terms of the speed of change though, and this is a central problem that deniers/skeptics struggle to explain - how to explain the current RATE of change. History doesn't help much.

History, as I noted above, helps plenty, as this BBC transcript shows:

QUESTION - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

JONES: An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Modern rates of warming are common, it appears.

CM

Bok proof would be a quote. After all, you said "If you want I can go and get link after link of you supporting carbon trading and the engineer".

Provide even one single quote. If you've got loads it should be extremely easy.

CM

>>>I'll have to step in and partially defend CM on claims that CM has been a rabid supporter of ETS schemes, I haven't found any evidence of a preponderance of comments in that vein<<<

A preponderance? In that vein?

As those quotes show, I've never heard a half decent explanation from a free-market advocate to justify why pollution (be it carbon or otherwise) isn't factored in. Seems to be a huge blind spot. Apparently everyone must subsidise business so it doesn't hurt their profits.

Holding that opinion in no way suggests I'm comfortable with a carbon market. Let alone a market that currently exists.

Attempting to make out that I'm "naked in full sight" and "backtracking" just shows how binary and entrenched your positions are. And obviously "All readers of this blog know that" indicates that at least David hopes he's not alone.

I'll try and get to the Jones interview tomorrow (I'm not ignoring it, before you all start having violent conniptions).

The comments to this entry are closed.