Monday Message Board (on Tuesday)

It’s time (past time in fact), once again, for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Lengthy side discussions to the sandpit, please.

91 thoughts on “Monday Message Board (on Tuesday)

  1. @Tony G

    Tony’s post here would be called non-responsive in a court of law. He alleges both fraud, and then a determined campaign to cover up fraud by a number of investigative bodies set up to examine whether fraud had taken place, adduces no evidence at all for either claim and then tries “let’s call it a draw” since those denying fraud are moved by “blind faith”.

    Truly, Tony lacks a functioning irony app otherwise he could not have made this claim.

    Then he decides in true Gish Galloping style, to move the goalposts from his baseless and refuted defamation of people who actually have both integrity and expertise to an entirely different proposition, which, precisely because he is a witting propagandist for the filth merchants or a simple dupe he also specifies inaccurately.

    Really, one need look no further than the spruikers and delusionals on this question to see why policy will never be framed by such folk.

  2. The claims of AGW fraud are well documented, I say there is a fraud you say there isn’t, lets just leave it to the people who froze thier balls off last winter to decide for themselves.

    “There is no direct relationship between the public sector share of GDP and the level of dangerous climate change.”

    So implementing a carbon tax is based on a fraud? as there is no relationship between tax “and the level of dangerous climate change.”

  3. Sorry Alan/Fran, I didn’t mean to reinforce the idea that changing the subject was analogous to a draw. In this case it clearly is not.

  4. @Tony G
    says “Alice, I was there on friday and ‘the consenus’ was overwelming; AGW is a fraud.”

    Tony – I think you stayed a bit too long in the pub.

  5. The claims of AGW fraud cannot be well-documented. You have been trying to document AGW fraud in this thread and all you’ve produced is a spectacular exercise is circular reasoning based on partial quotations.

    I did not say there is no relationship between a carbon tax and avoiding dangerous climate change. I said there is no relationship between the public sector share of GDP and avoiding dangerous climate change. Most carbon tax proposals are designed to be revenue neutral, so they would have no effect on the public sector share of GDP. Current and proposed carbon trading schemes are more complex and I’ll leave that to people better informed than I am.

    Personally I’d support a revenue neutral carbon tax, although I think Prof Q supports a carbon trading scheme.

  6. Tony G This is not my area of expertise but you can find the relevant literature quite easily. The Stern report contains estimates of this magnitude, as do a number of other reports that JQ has linked to in the past.

    Of course the figure of 2% is largely irrelevant. As I have said, we should pursue this (or any other policy) while the gains outweigh the costs regardless of the magnitudes.

  7. Well it has all been quite amusing Tony G – maybe you do have your uses in terms of recyclable hotel effluvia.. but I am now off to some fresh sand to see what hot air is emanating from el gordo!

  8. I found this amusing reading:

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/i-should-never-have-joined-the-national-party-rob-oakeshott/story-e6frf7l6-1225933306142

    If I am to believe him, he was dumb enough in 1993 to be all three of the three wise monkeys. A staffer, who joins the NATS and runs a campaign who doens’t know they are conservative? Did he not have any friends who shared his want of conservative conviction who queried how he could be working for the NATS as a staffer, let alone a candidate?

    Nope. Luckily for him, I don’t believe him. Nobody is that thick. The more plausible hypothesis is that he was simply playing games with them to advance his career. He figured his chances in the ALP were zip and went about it another way.

    Sneaky. Mind you, the NATS are as filthy and sleazy a political organisation as there is, so they can’t complain. Big time Schadenfreude!

    If one believes what he says about his impulses now, he seems like a reasonable fellow. Were I a Lyne voter, he’d probably get my 2nd preference.

  9. I mean this is just too bizarre – so I copied it here

    This is the first item that google pulls upn for a search on Blankfein

    Lloyd Blankfein – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Lloyd Craig Blankfein (born September 20, 1954) is the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of white collar crime institute Goldman Sachs. …

    Life and career – Goldman CEO – Politics – See also
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Blankfein – Cached – Similar

    I swear thats what it says…but it says nothing like that whe you click on the link!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s