Open forum 23-02-2009

Discuss any Bird posts you like…

Advertisements

468 Responses to “Open forum 23-02-2009”

  1. Alex Says:

    I nominate this as the supidest GB post ever:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/the-impossibly-large-size-of-some-dinosaurs-is-convergent-evidence-to-an-expanding-planet/

  2. Mark Hill Says:

    I nominate myself as the person Bird hates the most.

  3. GMB Says:

    Stop spamming you stupid fuck.

    You think you can get away with relentless lying and dishonesty by starting your own blog?

  4. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie

    Tell us about those martians you relentless idiot.

    You can’t delete our comments any more, you sheep fucker

  5. anti-bird Says:

    I nominate all his stupid physics and economics threads as eually silly. I can’t distinguish which is the worst.

    Thanks Z. This is a wonderful asset to the web.

  6. anti-bird Says:

    Mark:

    I don’t think he hates you the most. I reckon Humphreys owns that one.

  7. anti-bird Says:

    lets ask him.

    Birdie, who do you hate the most?

  8. GMB Says:

    Fuck off Cambria you stupid wog cunt.

    The planet has not stayed the same size. That’s been falsified.

  9. Lyam Says:

    Hi JohnZ

    Nice idea this blog, although I don’t really mind “debating” him on his own site.

    Some say it’s a waste of time, and others say it’s an INCREDIBLE waist of time.

    For those interested in the current state of scientific debate on continental migration, Wikipedia has a nice introduction (with animations :-))

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_of_the_Earth%27s_Crust

  10. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie:

    Don’t get angry now….

    Look I think this ought to be thought of as additional resource…. tool if you like to help us communicate with one another. Currently we’re finding it very difficult to have any reasonable discussion at your wesbite because you delete comments at will.

    So please, Birdie, help us use this site wisely and help the process along….. which is to show what a lunatic you are.

  11. Guano Says:

    I’m missing Graeme’s special offers for discounted membership to gay porn sites and gay sex venues.

    Come on Graeme, we know you have influence in the Sydney gay inner circle- use it you big oaf.

  12. GMB Says:

    FUCK OFF GUANO YOU SODOMITE FILTH.

  13. Bad Boy Bubby Says:

    Actually Professor Graeme Bird is a valued employee of the CSIRO:

    http://www.cmis.csiro.au/CFD/fem/CFSWA_abstracts/Professor%20Graeme%20Bird.htm

    “The objective of the study is to determine whether the noise and vibration in a hypersonic shock tunnel may affect the extent of separated flow regions and cause the flow to be unrepresentative of that in free flight. ”

    As the CSIRO couldn’t afford to buy a real hypersonic shock tunnel, Graeme graciously agreed to use his own arse as a simulator. Now that’s what I call true dedication to science.

  14. Lyam Says:

    No actually.

    The poor professor Graeme A Bird has suffered enough from being confused with our Graeme Montgomery Bird, that the prof has a disclaimer on his site 🙂

    http://www.gab.com.au/

  15. Lyam Says:

    Looks like Birdy invits us to go f@#k ourselves.

    So, what do we do? F@#k ourselves in ass or have a beer?

    Personally, I am not really thirsty 🙂

  16. Puff The Dragon Says:

    Not today honey, I have a headache 🙂

  17. Jason Soon Says:

    Bird
    Please explain why you

    1) support usury
    2) oppose freedom of consenting adults to invest in enterprises
    3) support continued NSW government ownership of electricity
    4) by implication prefer forced CO2 reductions *without* tax cuts by opposing Humphreys’ carbon tax income tax tradeoff
    5) oppose privatisation more generally

    and yet call yourself a libertarian.

    GO!!!

  18. Jason Soon Says:

    Bird
    Does the expanding planet hypothesis explain your gluteus maximus?

  19. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie

    Please answer uncle Jason’s questions. We’re all waiting for you and no pretending you’re not reading this. Because you are.

  20. Lyam Says:

    Ok the Birdy is back and of course he edited my post.

    His last explanation for the global conspiracy that falsified geological evidence is … socialist science.

    No no, I kid you not. Just go at take a look, it’s better than any late night comedy show 🙂

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/the-impossibly-large-size-of-some-dinosaurs-is-convergent-evidence-to-an-expanding-planet/#comment-21853

  21. graemebird Says:

    The person pretending to be me on this thread is not me.

  22. graemebird Says:

    “Bird
    Does the expanding planet hypothesis explain your gluteus maximus?”

    No. The huge muscles come from projecting and following ones goals as Cartman explain when he was taking that body-building formula.

  23. graemebird Says:

    “1) support usury
    2) oppose freedom of consenting adults to invest in enterprises
    3) support continued NSW government ownership of electricity
    4) by implication prefer forced CO2 reductions *without* tax cuts by opposing Humphreys’ carbon tax income tax tradeoff
    5) oppose privatisation more generally”

    1. I do support interest rates. But it must be said that nominal interest rates would be very low under growth-deflation.

    2. Not applicable. Governments need not apply for Australian real estate or natural resources. But foreign millionaires ought to be most welcome.

    3. No I want it sold off as soon as we can see that we have the market conditions for NEW STUFF to be built. I want it sold off in the smallest possible cash-flow-units. The smallest possible units that can produce a cash-flow. I think big business must evolve out of small business success. Not be cobbled together by consultants in the formation of Frankenstein corporations.

    4. Thats a lie. I want the spending cuts. You imply RIGHT THERE that spending cuts are verbotten.

    5. Thats a lie. But you guys have found a way to fuck up a good idea entirely. I didn’t think it was possible but you managed it.

    In summary I am a libertarian. And no-one else here is.

  24. graemebird Says:

    “Birdie:

    Don’t get angry now….

    Look I think this ought to be thought of as additional resource…. tool if you like to help us communicate with one another. Currently we’re finding it very difficult to have any reasonable discussion at your wesbite because you delete comments at will.

    So please, Birdie, help us use this site wisely and help the process along….. which is to show what a lunatic you are.”

    Actually I’m very pleased with this one which is odd since JohnZ created it.

    This means that there are 3 blogs started by others about me. Four at a stretch if you include Winchesters superb blog showcasing his prose-artist talents. But I cannot really include that one. So I’ll say 3.

    Keep them coming.

    We will save civilisation yet. This is surely the best thing JohnZ has ever done.

  25. Fyodor Says:

    In summary I am a libertarian. And no-one else here is.

    Ah, yes. Birdy: the only libertarian in the village.

    This is surely the best thing JohnZ has ever done.

    Close, Turkey. The best thing he ever did was get you up to a “9” on the Turkeymeter. That was special.

    Z-Man, we are not worthy. I bow to your brilliance, and hope you don’t get into extreme legal difficulty in the next, erm, coupla days.

  26. Bad Boy Bubby aka Mel Says:

    Hello Mr Birdy.

    You may not like it by you are really are Australia’s hugest gay icon. I never thought it would happen but you’ve managed to knock Barbara Streisand off her perch. Well done.

    Gay Sydney would love to see you in the next Mardi Gras. You could strut your stuff (maybe even shake your tail feather) between Dykes on Bikes and the Melbourne Marching Boys. Who could turn down an offer like that?

    Come on Mr Birdy, please say yes to your biggest fans.

  27. graemebird Says:

    You are just a moron Fyodor. You are just an idiot mate.

  28. Fyodor Says:

    You are just a moron Fyodor.

    This from the village idiot. Found any pyramids on Mars yet?

  29. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie

    Answer uncle Fyodor… have you found any pyramids on mars recently?

  30. GMB Says:

    Dear Mel

    You have persuaded me to come over to the other side. Will you initiate me into the mysteries of your tribe?

  31. GMB Says:

    My arse is now for sale to the highest bidder. Fyodor?

  32. graemebird Says:

    Well they aint giant crystals people. So you want to be rational about these things.

  33. graemebird Says:

    You’d be better off without the two sodomites on your blog z.

  34. graemebird Says:

    Here you are fighting a battle. You want cost-effectiveness and time-effectiveness and truthfulness on the one hand. And on the other hand you have statistical significance. You can always go back to get more of the latter. But its not real important. 5 good central continental stations ought to have been good enough. And as it turned out they were.

  35. GMB Says:

    Sodomy and conservatism are perfectly compatible.

  36. Jason Soon Says:

    Get a clue Fyodor. Birdy’s latest thing is the earth getting pregnant and having stretch marks and how this shows dinosaurs are too big. or something.

    The Martian pyramids stuff is so 1990s

  37. Fyodor Says:

    Birdy’s latest thing is the earth getting pregnant and having stretch marks and how this shows dinosaurs are too big. or something.

    The Martian pyramids stuff is so 1990s

    Oh, I dunno. Tell me, Turkey, does Uranus have stretch marks?

  38. Steve Edney Says:

    Yes the hypothesis is that we know the earth got bigger because dinosaur fossils are a special and don’t get bigger with the earth and that some people think they were too big to stand, even though we don’t really know what their soft tissue was like and how it may have solved these issues.

    Its much more likely that the explaination rather than being a problem with our lack of understanding about dinosaur anatomy is that the earth got both physically larger and much more massive by a mysterious mass creation process. Bird suggest E=mc^2 is the solution despite not believing in the relativity theory that gave us the result.

  39. anti-bird Says:

    This is the best blog going. Z, you’re a freaking champ.

  40. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie:

    Please tell uncle Fyodor who you want everyone to own liquefied coal and store the crap in their back yard.

    He wants people to take 44 gallon drums of liquefied coal every time they go to the super market. The fumes alone would kill ya.

  41. graemebird Says:

    Well Cambria you are lying about that. Although some of the farmers might like to store some. We used to store oil and petrol at our place. Not a great deal of it. Digitization means that money need not be quite as portable as it had to be in the past. Or to put it a better way digitization may let other commodities compete with gold and silver.

    But only if there is 100% backing at all time and even the smell of fractional reserve pyramiding isn’t there. Otherwise gold and silver is all we have. Which I think would be a bit of a shame.

  42. graemebird Says:

    “Sodomy and conservatism are perfectly compatible.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Well one supposes so. But we would only want the cleanest most respectable queers on our side.

  43. graemebird Says:

    Isn’t Steve Edney just exceeding himself in idiocy today. This is not some spontaneous space creation theory Edney you moron. Obviously there is no mechanism by which all things can grow proportionately you drooling irrational idiot.

    Are you fucking assessing the same theory? No you are not. You are just being a cunt.

    Clearly the theory implies matter creation deep within the earth. Prsumably at or near the centre. Maybe something to do with the electric currents associated with the magnetic fields since these are thought to be something to do with our iron/nickel centre. So deep penentration and matter creation forcing movement of matter upward, creating high pressure levels and stretch marks.

    What would that have to do with making everything proportionately bigger you blockhead?

    Now do we see the problem with socialist education and science? Edney virtually programmed to get in the way with the most imbecelic idiocy imagineable.

    In civilized company I could rest my case right there.

  44. anti-bird Says:

    Bird, Stop being an idiot. Where are you going to store millions of barrels of liquefied shit that no one uses that you’re suggesting we use as money.

    How the fuck are we going to carry around, bird, you moron.

    And if we left it in storage who the fuck is going to pay for storage, you egg nog?

    Right now we get interest for storing money with banks… or at least parking it there. Not only would we lose this, but we would also have to pay to store the smelly, fumes ridden shit shit we keep in barrels. It’s actually a disincentive to become rich as you wouldn’t want so much of that stuff around.

    You’re an idiot Bird. A complete turkey.

    I have told you before to listen to Mark, John and Jason about economics as you would learn something, but all you do is abuse them. this is becoming pathetic.

  45. pedro Says:

    Birdy, explain again how matter gets created at the centre of the earth. Just what is the mechanism for that? No arm waving about electrictiy and magnetic fields either. What is the mechanism?

  46. graemebird Says:

    I don’t know where they’ll store them and if they cannot store them cheaply like with the Americans strategic reserve then gold and silver will win out and we won’t have liquified coal.

    What is your problem Cambria. Its you that is the idiot. With your carbon tax you’ll be armtwisting idiots to store CO2. Which is a much harder and more expensive gig.

  47. Jason Soon Says:

    GRAEME SEZ:

    “… deep within …deep penentration …forcing movement of matter upward …stretch marks”

    Please Graeme. We know your crossdressing hero J Edgar Hoover was into this stuff but keep the queer fantasies to yourself …

  48. anti-bird Says:

    yea, Bird.

    if you want to live those fantasies like crossing dressing Hoover style, go down to Oxford street at the next Mardi Gras. We just don’t want to keep reading about your sordid thoughts on this blog.

  49. anti-bird Says:

    I don’t know where they’ll store them and if they cannot store them cheaply like with the Americans strategic reserve then gold and silver will win out and we won’t have liquified coal.

    No Bird lets be exact about this. Recently when you were spruiking oil to 200 bucks a barrel (which I note has now fallen to 40 bucks which is a 75% drop) when it was $145. It was then when you were pushing the idea of liquefied filthy coal. Bird if we stored that shit the fumes alone would kill us. Most people would end up with brain tumors as a result of that crap.

    What is your problem Cambria. Its you that is the idiot. With your carbon tax you’ll be armtwisting idiots to store CO2. Which is a much harder and more expensive gig.

    Not my carbon tax idea. IT was Humphreys idea that we would have a carbon tax with a cut in the income tax. I still see merit in that as I think it is a superb idea. You don’t like it because you’re jealous that humphreys is a lot smarter than you.

  50. anti-bird Says:

    And here we go again. Two guys make a YouTube animation and Birdy thinks he found a breakthrough.

    Exactly. This is what some guy said on Bird’s blog. that’s where the liquefied coal bullishit come from. Bird goes to the outer reaches of the webosphere, picks up a hairbrained idea and then calls everything else socialist and abuses people for not agreeing with him.

    You egg nog.

  51. Fyodor Says:

    In civilized company I could rest my case right there.

    Turkey, whether in civilised company or amongst the most barbaric, savage tribes ever known to man, the only case you could mount would be comprised of a single nut the size of your pea-brain.

    In fact, you’re nuttier than a Picnic bar, but without the good looks.

  52. graemebird Says:

    Look. You dummies. Its just going with the evidence thats all.

    In the case of global warming that thesis is falsified. The idea that the size and gravity stays the same…. that dogma is falsified. The dogma of the big bang is falsified and never got off the ground in the first place under any sensible epistemology. In the case of the multiplier. That is idiocy that doesn’t get off the ground which is why you guys run a mile before you try and justify it.

    So its all just about going with the evidence.

    I don’t know how you do it in boot-nigger town Cambria. But where I am we don’t get emotional about it. We just go with the evidence.

  53. graemebird Says:

    “Not my carbon tax idea. IT was Humphreys idea that we would have a carbon tax with a cut in the income tax. I still see merit in that as I think it is a superb idea. ”

    Its a stupid idea that flies in the face of both economics and science. It could not be more stupid. Nothing could be more stupid then taxing a positive externality.

    I’ve gone over this before you bootnigger cunt. What have you come up with.

    It punishes the very companies that we need for them to expand their capacity.

    Now what is it you are not understanding you stupid cunt.

    What is this that says that you have to raise carbon tax to cut other taxes. You don’t. Thats a lie.

    So you are just being a traitor. You cannot justify this on any grounds whatsoever. Its not his idea. I came with it in 1990 for fucksakes. Its a kids idea.

    But its a dumb idea when CO2 release is good.

    You are a cunt Cambria. YOu are traitor. Why do you keep supporting it.

    What is your justification. It will destroy our ability to expand those companies that can make synthetic fuel.

    Is that too hard for you to understand you stupid cunt.

  54. graemebird Says:

    Is this Carbon tax going to help Linc Energy, Carbon Australia, and Cougar energy have new share issues and expand their operations?

    And why can you not advocate spending cuts and company tax cuts, and inflation tax cuts WITHOUT A CARBON TAX.

    You see you are a fucking idiot mate. We will have to HAVE TO expand synthetics. And neither you nor Humphreys understand economics. So get out of the way and stop fucking it up.

    His plan is idiotic. I’ve proved that 1000 times. Thats why he always runs away. He’s a crank. He doesn’t understand capital expansion. In both climate and economics he just thinks in terms of static equilibrium and he refuses to learn anything else.

    He’s a fucking ignorant cunt when it comes to economics.

    I don’t know how to explain things to people who are so belligerently ignorant but you have to base things on capital accumulation. And the CO2 is a killer. It will destroy our abillity to adapt to expensive oil.

  55. graemebird Says:

    You have capital moving to industries and firms… And this equalises profits throughout the economy. Or tends to.

    If you have a CO2 tax, the very people who we NEED to expand their capital will be deprived of it. They won’t be able to raise money, their share prices will be depressed, they simply will not be able to come through with the synthetic diesel when the imported stuff gets too expensive.

    So what is Humphreys spruiking carbon tax for. He’s doing it out of evil or ignorance. He’s got the idiotic Frank knight, economics for children models in his head and he won’t learn anything else.

    You guys are idiots. Why don’t learn economics or just shut the fuck up, and do the right thing and oppose any cap and kill. YOu don’t need to support second-worst policy just because you are too fucking lazy to learn anything.

    Drop dead and cause no further harm rather than promote this economic lunacy.

  56. Adrien Says:

    I’ve proved that 1000 times.
    .
    Bird the only thing you’ve proved any time is that you’re a big fat loser. A coward, a massive bucket of resentful lard that resorts to abuse and censorship when the thin crust of pseudo-logic that passes for his ‘thought’ gets exposed as the half-arsed crackpot rambling of a wasted education and a life of ego-driven pointlessness.

  57. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie

    Listen to Uncle Fyodor. He’s asked you to act civilized.

    Humphreys has a great idea in how we move taxes from income to a form of sales tax. We currently have an excise tax and I’ve never seen you get so angry about that.

    Admit it. John owns you when it comes to economics and you’re jealous.

  58. Adrien Says:

    Oh and here’s GMB’s AGW ‘debate’ again.

    Well Graeme why don’t you just clarify your position. We’ve only been waiting a couple of years.
    .
    Is it:
    .
    1. There is no global warming
    2. There is global warming but we’re not causing it
    3. There is global warming, we are causing it but that’s a good thing in this brutal and pulverizing ice age.
    .
    Which?

  59. graemebird Says:

    No no. I’ve proved it 1000 times over 3 years and this bootnigger and Humphreys keep running away. And will justify their stupid idea on logical, scientific or economic grounds.

    All they do is say its less worse then something else and then they chicken out. They just won’t admit they are wrong when they are proven wrong.

    All Cambria has to do is show that CO2 is bad for the environment. Then he has to show that taxing CO2 will help and not hurt energy production companies expand their rate of capital accumulation.

    If he can make a plausible case for the above well then fair enough.

    But the bootnigger and that totally ignorant geek Humphreys both know that they cannot do it.

  60. Adrien Says:

    John owns you when it comes to economics and you’re jealous.

    I have mould in my bathroom that owns Graeme when it comes to economics.

  61. graemebird Says:

    So where is the evidence that industrial-CO2 harms the environment? As opposed to the actual scientific evidence which shows that it makes the environment more robust?

    And where is the evidence that having a CO2 tax will help capital expansion in liquid-synthetics energy production companies?

    As opposed to starving these companies. Whereas I say that less inflation, cuts to the company tax, and cuts to government spending more generally, will make them grow.

    I’m not wrong about this. You guys are. You are fucking vandals mate. You are doing enourmous damage. So just DIE. Or get out of the way and stop drowning out those who actually understand economics.

  62. graemebird Says:

    So I say that cutting spending, cutting monetary growth, cutting company tax, is what will make these synthetic energy fuel companies grow.

    You guys on the other hand think there are gains to be made by maintaining spending and having a CO2 tax?????

    Where is this idiocy coming from. And why not learn some economics that goes beyond static-equilibrium models.

    You guys just don’t have a case.

  63. graemebird Says:

    See you either go silent or you refuse to engage the subject. Then next time we see you you are betraying liberty and this country. Betraying Cougar Energy, Linc, Carbon Australia, and telling every cunt that we need to maintain spending, run deficits, increase CO2 tax and sell every fucking thing to the communists.

    If you are not up to learning capital theory just get out of the way. Stop talking like an authority. You fucking boot nigger. Why did you ever cut loose from and betray Gerry Jackson.

    You are just a traitor Cambria.

  64. Adrien Says:

    You are just a traitor Cambria.

    And when did Joe sign up to the Hugh Jass Ideological Compliance Committee?

    Look Graeme why don’t you just wander into some well-populated area and let loose with a weapon. I’m not worried you’ll hurt anyone. You’re much to incompetent for that. But maybe you’ll pose enough of a threat so that the cops’ll do what your mother should’ve.

  65. Adrien Says:

    Why do we need synthetic fuel Graeme? I thought AGW was just a lie.

  66. graemebird Says:

    Does any cunt even know what a static-equilibrium model is?

    In both the economics and climate side of this debate it is this sort of model that is setting you the wrong way. But I suspect you are all too fucking stupid to even figure out what I’m saying.

    I tell you the truth. Humphreys idiotic policy response is simply to do with him being fixated with static-equilibrium models. He never tries to think of capital accumulation in Cougar energy and others at all.

  67. graemebird Says:

    You are an idiot Adrien. We need synthetic fuels to run the economy and drive our cars. Too hard for you dummy. We need synthetic carbon fuels. Liquified coal which is a diesel equivalent.

  68. Adrien Says:

    The evidence .

    Yet again.

  69. graemebird Says:

    I maintain that Humphreys only economic argument is that the carbon tax is less bad then the cap and kill. Well we know that. Only an imbecile does not know that.

    That means its the second worst policy option. And the dumb cunt promotes it. He promotes it as if he is not allowed to promote spending cuts. But spending cuts are always the answer. And we have been betrayed by our economists because they refuse to tell everyone this. Instead this stupid fucking cunt, for no reason at all, is saying that carbon tax is the answer.

    Well its not. It s a fucking suicide attempt. Because it starves the companies we need to expand.

  70. graemebird Says:

    You are lying Adrien. There is no evidence that CO2 is bad for the environment in your link.

    You are just a fucking liar mate.

  71. Adrien Says:

    We need synthetic fuels to run the economy and drive our cars. Too hard for you dummy. We need synthetic carbon fuels. Liquified coal which is a diesel equivalent.

    Why?

    We’ve got coal and oil. Why do we need synthetic fuels? Remember AGW’s not a problem. Or if it is, it’s a good thing in this global and pulverizing ice age.

    Another glaring inconsistency in the fetid rusty matrix of sub-standard wiring that holds Graeme’s skull together. Naturally he won’t explain himself he’ll just resort the excessive indulgence in the word ‘cunt’. He’s long since been incapable of spewing his more imaginative slurs like ‘anti-semite’ or ‘communist’.

    Poor old Graeme. All that time spent at the University of Wakiki-Ha-Taurumoua Baa Baa Baa and where did it get you.

    If only they’d been able to teach you a course in SHUT THE FUCK UP!

  72. graemebird Says:

    So Adrien could not come up with any evidence that CO2 was a negative thing. Rather he pretended.

    I hope we are past that particular lie.

    If we are past that we can go onto the economics argument, in the context of medium-term energy problems. CO2 tax will hurt our ability to adapt to these problems. Only a fucking moron and economic retard would even dispute me on this. Its like we have the famous Eccles as our economics guide in the form of Humphreys.

  73. Adrien Says:

    There is no evidence that CO2 is bad for the environment in your link.

    Oooh let’s see:

    The global mean surface temp is rising. This decade (contra Bolt et al) is the hottest on record.

    The Arctic melts entirely in summertime.

    There is no known natural cause.

    CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases and we produce heaps.

    BLah blah fucking blah!

  74. graemebird Says:

    So you didn’t with any evidence for what we are talking about.

    Are we through with that side of it yet?

    You have not shown that CO2 does anything wrong or bad. You have not shown that it even warms…. which is a good thing. You stupid cunt.

    Now are we through that side of it yet. Or are you just going to keep displaying your fucking idiocy?

  75. graemebird Says:

    No known natural cause for the arctic to melt in summer what a dumb cunt Adrien is. How about ocean currents and three fucking months of endless daytime you fucking stupid cunt.

    So Adrien hasn’t got any evidence for CO2 harm and neither have the rest of you. Rather all evidence is that the CO2 is a good thing.

    So what is the justification for the Carbon tax.

  76. graemebird Says:

    So are we clear now that Adrien has no evidence to say that CO2 emissions are bad and all the evidence says they are good.

    So why do we want to tax them? Adrien has no science evidence and Humphreys has no economic evidence.

  77. Adrien Says:

    From the National Climatic Data Centre:

    U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970’s at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. The past nine years have all been among the 25 warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S., a streak which is unprecedented in the historical record.

    Now Graeme is this:

    1. False? Why?
    2. True but not related to human activity.
    3. True, related to human activity but a good thing.

    Multiple choice question. You remember those doncha? They were the only exams you could ever pass.

    Answer?

  78. graemebird Says:

    ONCE AGAIN YOU CUNT YOU HAVE NOT COME UP WITH EVIDENCE THAT CO2 RELEASE IS GOOD. Obviously if it warms its good. But you haven’t come up with any evidence that it even does that.

    GOT IT YOU STUPID CUNT?

    So Adrien has no evidence. He’s trying to come up with evidence that it warms. If he succeeds that further shows that CO2 release is good. But he has nothing.

    Likewise Humphreys has no economic evidence for a carbon tax.

  79. Adrien Says:

    How about ocean currents and three fucking months of endless daytime you fucking stupid cunt.

    Funny. When I was 10 there were ocean currents and endless daytime and, um, the Arctic didn’t melt. So what happened?

    So what is the justification for the Carbon tax.

    Well if nothing else it might drive you around the twist and inspire you to make good use of the shotgun in furtherance of losing 20 pounds of ugly fat.

    We can always hope. 🙂

  80. Adrien Says:

    Graeme the evidence that CO2 warms stuff is elementary. If you hadn;t gotten chucked out of kindy for rooting the teacher’s hamster you would;ve learned that in what’s called science class.

  81. graemebird Says:

    Where is the evidence that the CO2 release is bad?

    We know it makes the plants grow faster. We know it makes them cope with less water. Makes them deal better with frost. These are all good things. And if it warms thats a good thing too.

    So where is the evidence that it warms, which is good, and where is the evidence that it is bad.

    Adrien has nothing.

    He’s a vandal.

    He doesn’t even know what fucking evidence is.

    So why is Humphreys being such a traitor. When no cunt can dispute that CO2-release does only good things.

  82. graemebird Says:

    No no Adrien. You have NOT presented evidence that CO2 warms the climate. But if you did that would further reinforce how GOOD CO2 is.

    But haven’t done so.

    So stop being a cunt. Either come up with the evidence or fuck off.

    Now what is the case for Humphreys clear treason. He’s an ignorant cunt.

  83. graemebird Says:

    So no scientific evidence from Adrien or anyone else. And no economic evidence from Humphreys.

    Well isn’t that fucking wonderful. Wanting to ruin this country and no cunt can come up with even a single reason to do so.

  84. Fyodor Says:

    Adrien, if I may be so bold I think you’re playing this a little too keen.

    You’ll never get him to 10* consecutive comments if you keep interrupting. The trick is to work the Turkey into a nicely basting lather, and then let him fly for a while. Think of it as the blogging equivalent of big-game fishing, but against an animal lacking a fish’s reasoning ability.

    *Apparently, he does go up to 11 if you really get him going. Think of it as your “stretch” target. Now GO!!!!!!

  85. jc Says:

    Bird

    1. You want to liquefy coal as a form of money when no one has any use for the junk.

    2. You want to introduce sharia banking and quite possibly also introduce laws that would chop off hands and or feet of bankers that lend money.

    3. You think there’s a highways system on mars.

    4. Explodia.

    5. Expanding earth

    6. allow people to tunnel under neighbors homes like gofers.

    these are only a few, Birdie. What else can I show you that demonstrates lunacy.

    Listen to uncle Fyds.

  86. Adrien Says:

    Graeme, here is conclusive evidence.

  87. jc Says:

    Bird:

    You want to introduce Sharia banking…

    You stumbled on Sharia banking and didn’t even realize it until I patiently explained to you that if you went any further you could end up in gitmo. You then went ballistic.

  88. graemebird Says:

    So my opponents never have any evidence that industrial CO2 is bad for the biosphere. All evidence says its good. They don’t have any evidence at all and they never did and never once came up with any in three years.

    All they do is obstruct the debate.

    Given that all they do is obstruct the debate we can take it as given that CO2 is good for the biosphere. Even better if there is some tiny warming that slips underneath the evidence radar.

    So now that we know CO2 is good WHY THE FUCK ARE DUMB CUNTS LIKE HUMPHREYS ADVOCATING TAXING IT WHEN AN IMPENDING ENERGY CRISIS IS BEARING DOWN ON US???????

    This is not just a little bit of stupidity we are talking here people. This is no small mistake.

  89. graemebird Says:

    So Cambria the traitor is lying about a totally different subject.

    Now how is that evidence or argument in favour of A FUCKING CARBON TAX YOU FUCKING TRAITOR BOOT-NIGGER CUNT?????

    So in fact you don’t have any argument, you never did and neither does Humphreys.

    Thats just a fact.

  90. jc Says:

    Focus on Sharia banking Birdie.

  91. Adrien Says:

    I think you’re playing this a little too keen.

    You’re right Fyodor. I’ll chill out next time. It’s just been so long since I pocked this big dumb animal with a stick. 🙂

  92. graemebird Says:

    So apart from attempts to obstruct when it comes down to it you have no evidence or argument.

    So why promote a carbon tax for the last fucking 2 years or more?????

    And why get Humphreys when he’s wrong?

    You see you are traitors. In the end you don’t care the damage you are doing to our ability to adapt. I’m alright Jack you say. I’m rich. The taxpayer pays my lving, wipes the babies ass, feeds my kids. I’m alright Jack.

    Yet this stupidity will ruin this country.

  93. Adrien Says:

    Graeme if you wanna refute my evidence than have a look at that link and tell me specifically where it gets it wrong.

  94. graemebird Says:

    So are we clear now that none of you are able to justify a carbon tax?

    So now will you undo the damage you have done you treasonous foreign bastards. Or go home.

  95. graemebird Says:

    You didn’t get anything wrong. But there was nothing there that showed that CO2 was bad. Nothing. Got it Adrien you stupid cunt.

    Why fuck it up when you don’t understand science?

    All evidence shows that CO2 is good and nothing in your link went against this.

  96. Fyodor Says:

    It’s just been so long since I pocked this big dumb animal with a stick.

    Dude, tell me about it. It’s like walking past a $100 note diamond nano-rod just lying there on the ground.

  97. jc Says:

    Bird there’s is evidence that Co2 is possibly causing temps to rise. You just don’t want to look at it. Like a big baby you’re just closing your eyes. It’s not water tight, but there is supportable evidence. However I’m not scared of it and neither should you be.

  98. graemebird Says:

    So after that last moronic query of Adriens where he further emphasised what a dumb cunt he is are we now clear that CO2 helps the environment be more robust and healthy and is therefore a good thing. And if it warms, thought there is no evidence anywhere that it does, still that will make its effects even better.

    SO WHY TAX IT?

  99. graemebird Says:

    JC YOU ARE LYING.

    OK.

    YOU ARE FUCKING LYING.

    THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE A LYING CUNT.

    Now come up with that evidence or admit you are a lying cunt.

  100. graemebird Says:

    The rest of you help me out and shake this lying boot nigger down for the evidence or force him to admit that he was lying.

    Its a good thing if it warms. So no need to tax it. But there is no evidence and you are fucking lying.

  101. jc Says:

    Why tax incomes? Why is an income tax better than taxing carbon? You have no idea and abuse and deleting comments is not going to stop us any more bird. Z found our freedom from you incessant stupidity and we’re not going to take it anymore.

  102. graemebird Says:

    Come on Cambria. Lets have that evidence or lets have that retraction you lying bootnigger traitor cunt.

  103. graemebird Says:

    If CO2 warmed it would be the best dumb luck we ever had and obviously so. But its important to NOT LET TRAITORS TELL FUCKING LIES.

    So lets have that evidence Cambria.

  104. jc Says:

    Birdie:

    If you’re going to abuse me like that the site moderator may just delete your comment.

  105. Adrien Says:

    Graeme I don’t think you’ve even looked at the link. I reckon you don’t bother looking at the link. You just say: that’s not evidence.

    This is irrefutable evidence. Tell me why it isn’t.

  106. graemebird Says:

    You can cut income tax. Without increasing carbon tax.

    Now about this lie you told before. You going to retract it you lying cunt?

    Lets have the evidence or lets have the retraction. If you cut spending you can cut income tax and carbon tax.

    But just as a matter of interest a carbon tax is far more harmful dollar for dollar than an income tax its true. Because it will destroy those synthetics companies ability to expand their capital. But you don’t need either.

    Now it seems that Cambria is squirming out of this outrageous lie he told before.

    He said that carbon warms. He doesn’t have the evidence for this. He’s a liar. Good if it did warm. But he’s lying.

    Lets have that evidence Cambria.

  107. graemebird Says:

    So where is the case? CO2 tax is worse than income tax its true but you don’t need either.

    You can cut spending.

    So where is the justification?

  108. graemebird Says:

    Lets have that evidence you lying cunt Cambria.

  109. jc Says:

    Because it will destroy those synthetics companies ability to expand their capital.

    What companies, you idiot. Most can’t operate below 80 bucks a barrel. They’re dead.

  110. graemebird Says:

    So all this time, you never had a case, but you supported the treason anyway. And never did you find evidence that these guys will cut income taxes if they get a carbon tax. But yet this is your whole case??????

    Your case stinks. Yet you have been absolutely 100% on this. Totally behind the moron Humphreys on this.

  111. jc Says:

    CO2 tax is worse than income tax its true but you don’t need either.

    So when was the last time you agitated against an excise tax?

  112. graemebird Says:

    Come on Cambria. You said CO2 warms. You were lying. If you don’t think so lets have the evidence.

  113. graemebird Says:

    CO2 tax isn’t excise tax. Thats no argument. Now you lied about CO2 warming. Where is your scientific evidence.

  114. graemebird Says:

    Come on Cambria. I”m not a boot nigger. So I only believe things that I have evidence for. I’m totally fastidious on this matter.

    You made a claim. Where is your evidence.

  115. jc Says:

    You said CO2 warms. You were lying. If you don’t think so lets have the evidence.

    No I didn’t you’re lying. I never said that. I said there is a strong possibility. Stop lying, Birdie.

  116. graemebird Says:

    Most cannot operate below 80 a barrel its true. And to get their costs down they need capital accumulation. That is the absolute key to it. Hence the CO2 tax will quite literally destroy our ability to adapt.

    Now where is your evidence that CO2 warms things. Thats a lie as good as it would be were it true.

    Lets have your evidence you stupid bootnigger traitor cunt or lets have your retraction.

  117. graemebird Says:

    WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THE STRONG POSSIBILITY THEN.

    Lets have that evidence for the strong possibility. So that we can show that CO2 is even better than we think it is. An even better positive externality and gift to nature.

  118. jc Says:

    Biridie

    I asked first. So be civilized for a minute and tell us about why you want to introduce sharia banking. I promise to explain myself after the sharia banking debate.

    But you have to learn some etiquette first.

  119. graemebird Says:

    You are lying about that also.

    Now where is your evidence for the warming, and being as we are going into a little ice age effective real soon why is that a bad thing that you want to tax?

  120. graemebird Says:

    So we have TWO(2) things that you are being a stupid cunt about. In fact you have no evidence of this strong possibility. But if you did that would prove that CO2 release is even better than I said.

    Yet you are such a dumb cunt you cannot even make this simple logical connection.

  121. Jason Soon Says:

    why are you against income tax cuts Bird?

  122. Jason Soon Says:

    Please explain your preference for high progressive income taxes. GO!!!

  123. graemebird Says:

    So this total failure in logic and reason by you guys has been going on for months, if not years now. And its just getting out of hand. Arrenhius first came up with this idea PRECISELY in the thought that it would be a good thing to warm things up and avoid another devastating ice age.

  124. jc Says:

    What fucking ice age, you loon?

  125. graemebird Says:

    You are lying about that Jason. I want mass-sackings so we can get rid of a lot of these taxes.

    Now my case is logical. And you people are betraying logic, science and economics.

    What is the evidence that a little bit of human warming is a BAD THING as we slip into a new little-little-ice-age?

    In fact its a good thing were it true.

  126. graemebird Says:

    You see I know I’m being logical. All the way down the line and in every constituent part of my argument right up to the politics and the capital accumulation.

    That means I know that you people are not being logical. That you are betraying the rest of us with unreason.

    So I say I’m right to be angry at all of you.

    And I say when you wake up tomorrow you should turn over a new leaf or determine to kill yourselves somehow.

  127. graemebird Says:

    JC the science tells us we are going into a little ice age.

  128. Jason Soon Says:

    just as it told us there was peak oil right?

    when are you going to apologise for being wrong about that btw?

  129. jc Says:

    What science. Birdie’s explodia theory on everything?

    Where’s the evidence Bird? I wanna see the evidence.

  130. graemebird Says:

    I was right about that. The supply has not increased. We are at decadal peak oil. So we need to expand the capital as it relates to synthetics. We may beat our daily oil production twenty years down the track. But we won’t do it anytime soon.

  131. graemebird Says:

    So do you see the crisis we are in…. little ice age….. peak oil at least for the next time period…….. 30 years behind on our nuclear schedule…….. bad economics destroying our capital markets……

    … and as if to top it off you lunatics want a CO2 tax.

    So everything EVERYTHING is pushing us into a capital energy vortex.

    And you guys are too ignorant to understand this and wouldn’t care if you did understand it.

  132. graemebird Says:

    How many times have I gone over this people?

    And yet the keepers of the credentialist flame still either refuse to get it or are too ignorant.

  133. jc Says:

    Peak oil at 145 bucks a barrel, no less Jason. Bird was buying at 145 bucks looking for $200 to prove his peak oil theory was true.

    The loon was peddling peak oil at 145 bucks a barrel.

    He could have singlehandedly brought down an I- bank if by some fluke of nature he worked as a proprietary trader at a bank.

    That’s another one of his theories on everything. Peak oil….

  134. Jason Soon Says:

    how much is oil now Bird?

    I think you should apologise.

    get down on bended knee and apologise.

  135. graemebird Says:

    You don’t care about the evidence you are a stupid cunt. The evidence for decadal peak oil is that we are not producing above 2005 daily levels. End of story. The evidence for the little ice age we are going into is a bit more extensive. But you could start with the Archibald youtubes on my site and then ask questions if you are interested.

    So your silliness does not change anything. We are still at this point:

    little ice age….. peak oil at least for the next time period…….. 30 years behind on our nuclear schedule…….. bad economics destroying our capital markets……

    … and as if to top it off you lunatics want a CO2 tax.

    Thats where we are at. And I’ve been right about everything including the decadal peak oil but you just refuse to accept the clear evidence on this score like on everything else you stupid boot nigger cunt.

  136. jc Says:

    I was right about that.

    no you weren’t, you moron.

    The supply has not increased.

    More accurately the supply has not increased because the suppliers are cutting production like crazy and drillers have stopped dead in their tracks.

    We are at decadal peak oil.

    Are you a cross dresser. No offense to cross dressers.

    So we need to expand the capital as it relates to synthetics.

    You moron, who the fuck is going put capital into an operation when the oil price is at 40 bucks a barrel and they’re still cutting supply.

    We may beat our daily oil production twenty years down the track. But we won’t do it anytime soon.

    I’m sure OPEC doesn’t wanna beat their daily production. If they did oil would go to 5 bucks a barrel.

  137. graemebird Says:

    Now back to it. You don’t have a case for this hateful CO2-tax. So why are you traitor-cunts pushing it?

  138. graemebird Says:

    So still no argument from the dumb boot nigger just another destraction.

    So why are you being such a treasonous cunt and backing something that will hurt our country. Go home bootnigger or shape up.

  139. jc Says:

    You don’t care about the evidence you are a stupid cunt. The evidence for decadal peak oil is that we are not producing above 2005 daily levels. End of story.

    hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha.

  140. jc Says:

    apologize birdie.

    Apologize for all he stupid theories you have introduced that have polluted the web.

  141. Jason Soon Says:

    how much is the price of oil now Bird?

    apologise

    man up and apologise

  142. jc Says:

    Bird
    Stop being a coward , apologize and ask for out forgiveness. Take the high road, Birdie.

  143. graemebird Says:

    No I’m right and you are wrong. Because peak oil is about daily supply of oil from traditional sources. So I’m right and you are wrong.

    The price has come down because of the sudden collapse in international business spending. Not because of a bubble. I make no apologies for not predicting Bernanke/Paulson incompetence. The economy ought not have collapsed this far and oil ought still be around 100 usd.

    In any case it will be persistently high but hopefully this collapse in business spending has bought us some time.

    Now the fact of the matter is that a carbon tax means full frontal wealth destruction in 2009. Not necessarily in 1960 or in 2060. But a carbon tax is much worse dollar for dollar than an income tax in 2009. Much worse. It will be akin to carpet bombing. How did you fall so far off the beam that you wound up comparing it to an excise. Legalising and putting an excise on narcotics would have barely any effect on wealth destruction. Whereas a carbon tax is death to capital creation at this time in our industrial history.

  144. graemebird Says:

    By the way. I almost always qualify it as a DECADAL PEAK. Because I tend to favour the abiotic theory. So I tend to think that if we can drill cheaply heaps deeper and also go after the deep ocean gear then we ought to be able to beat that daily output but not any time soon.

    Now how does this relate to carbon tax? Carbon tax would prevent us from accumulating the capital necessary to break records in daily oil production. Since it would prevent the capital update necessary to go after the deeper stuff and the deep sea stuff.

  145. Fyodor Says:

    Look, Turkey, it’s embarassingly clear how manifestly wrong you are. You really should apologise for your unrelentingly grotesque moronism.

  146. Lyam Says:

    For those who are interested in Martian “pyramids” (and it is interesting even for sane people :-)). I here give you a little link to show that Birdy, as usual, is just out of his mind.

    Go here

    http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2003/09/15/

    to see pictures, from “above” of this “pyramid” and you will see that they are natural structures.

    The “pyramid” has 5 (and not 4) sides, which are far from being planar but are rather ravines. What Birdy, and his friends bong addicts, thinks is some kind of “landing pad” are perfectly consistent with the structure.

    In short, as anyone with half a brain would have thought, the pyramidal structures observed on Mars in the first mission were shown to be perfectly natural structures thanks to data collected in other missions.

  147. Eric the Vice King Says:

    It’s a good thing for Graeme that the government isn’t proposing a tax on lard.

  148. anti-bird Says:

    .Because I tend to favour the abiotic theory.

    of course you do. In fact there’s no reason you need to mention it.

    In short, as anyone with half a brain would have thought, the pyramidal structures observed on Mars in the first mission were shown to be perfectly natural structures thanks to data collected in other missions.

    Birdie, you realize you’ve been fascinated by pyramids even before you picked upo this hairbrained theory. You even used to suggest entire cities could be turned into pyramids.

  149. Steve Edney Says:

    I will commend John Z for this excellent site. Even brought Fyodor out which is great to see.

  150. Lyam Says:

    anti-bird,

    Don’t be to mean with our delusional-shitmagnet, after all it is the plains which give relief to mountains 🙂

    The more I practice the Birdy the more I enjoy it. Think of him as Lewsi Carrol’s “other side of the mirror”.

    My approach is, for any topic I know nothing about, to proceed along the following steps:
    1/ consider the Birdy’s arguments as completely wrong or/and uninformed or/and down right batsh@#t crazy
    2/ look for info on the topic to contradict him. It usually concerns the very fundamentals such as the existence of light 🙂
    3/ Try to sort things out to make a decent post. (Something with a beginning a middle and an end)

    The surprising result is that I actually learn things! I guess this approach works best with contrarians (I know that’s not a word) like myself.

  151. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    Dear Mr Bird
    Let us count this attempt by your degenerate detractors to mock your sagacity as a Pyrrhic victory. For they have unintentionally handed you the keys to victory just as that accursed Trilateralist FDR did to Stalin (though in that case it was far from unintentional). This website may well be one of the waves that turn back the tide of the swamp of Bolshevism. Already I hear the great Dr Keyes is making strides in his brave opposition to the Islamist candidate Obama.

    The composition of your detractors says much about our unchecked immigration policy Mr Bird. We have Lyam, obvious standard bog Irish prole. We have a descendant of the garlic eaters who were of much use to us in building our roads and dams decades ago and serve us well as greengrocers but who have clambered up on our backs because of their willingness to serve the axis of Rockefeller-Soros-Rothschild in the debauchery of our monetary system. We have the rampaging Celstial Hordes – the Mongol Soon and the Russian Fyodor, the two horsemen of the Bolshevik-Internationalists. I have long argued for significant restrictions on voting rights of new arrivals at least for a few generations. Now you see the sad consequence – a generation of Goths undermining us from within and white-anting our institutional legacy. It is left to fine British stock like ourselves, Mr Bird to do what we can and do what we must. Sadly I have not had much time to write this past month as my legal wrangles with the Communist oppressors are still not over. They are still persecuting me for my stockpile, but soon …

  152. Lyam Says:

    Ahhhh the infamous Winchester Quatermain joins us.

    I have a bats@#t hypothesis about this half-rifle half-comicbook character, and I would be interested in the input of the exiles club.

    I am wondering if he is a hoax so that Birdy has a friend. At some point I even wonder if the guy isn’t Birdy himself.

    The “evidence” which fuels my paranoia are:
    – Winchester would like Birdy to be the leader of some sort of coup to bring a better world. Remember:Graeme for higher office 🙂 (see the introduction)
    – The topics he brings up are basically a mirror of Birdy’s beliefs
    – Winchester’s prose, while superficially “erudite”, show him to be a homophobic, sexist, paranoid gun loving freak (beautifully synthetic and accurate description by Peter Jensen)

    Go to

    http://winchesterquartermain.blogspot.com/2009/02/rougher-than-usual-handling.html

    and see for yourself.

  153. Steve Edney Says:

    Winchester,

    I am pleased that you you did not group me in with the degenerate mix of wogs listed above.

  154. Tillman Says:

    I am wondering if he is a hoax

    uh do you think?

  155. Lyam Says:

    Dear Tillman

    I don’t think, (I put my brains on my desk before blogging about anything related to Birdy).

    In my own words, it is a bats@#t hypothesis and I asked the opinion of the exiles fraternity (which doesn’t include you) to help me sort things out.

  156. Tillman Says:

    Ok Lyam.

    I would have thought it was pretty obvious that WC is about as bona fide as the pyramids on Mars.

  157. Lyam Says:

    Ok Tillman, no offense meant 🙂

    It’s obvious I need to shut down my computer and go do something related to the real world!

  158. anti-bird Says:

    Fme

    This could turn out to be the biggest Site in Ozblogs. Z could be on a winner here. Advertising alone could make him into a millionaire.

  159. anti-bird Says:

    Yea

    Thanks Winchester. At least you picked the Russians and Chinese this time leaving the real wogs like me out of it.

    Lyam

    How did you find Birdie? It seems you’re a recent convert to Birditis.

  160. John Humphreys Says:

    Bird is of course correct.

    There is no great harm from a little warming and little evidence that a catastrophe is coming.

    And I think the 1st best scenario would be for the government to not exist.

    But Bird, in his righteous anger, has missed an important political constraint. The current political economy in Australia does not allow us to achieve 1st best libertarian solutions — such as abolishing income tax, drug laws, IR laws, welfare & wars.

    So we are forced to deal in the world of 2nd best. A not-entirely-pleasant place, to be sure… but it is where ideas and reality collide.

    In this grubby world of the possible it becomes important whether we have taxes or trading. And it becomes important whether it is linked to more spending, or tax cuts.

    I note that the “left” (such as Clive Hamilton) have condemned me (and others) for opening up the policy debate because he fears this may slow down government action. He has a point. I think policy action should be slowed down so that we can re-assess other less-harmful options.

    I may not succeed. We may get stuck with an ETS and more government spending. And it may start in 2010. That would be a shame. But at least I have tried to take a stand against this policy in the only way that may work in our current political environment.

  161. John Humphreys Says:

    And I might add that I am clearly correct on all matters because I am of British stock. 🙂

  162. anti-bird Says:

    Well I guess you must be on the right track if the hivester condemns you.

  163. DH Says:

    “And I might add that I am clearly correct on all matters because I am of British stock.”

    You look Welsh to me Humphries, which makes you inherently untrustworthy.

  164. Graeme Bird Says:

    Now that you are here Humphreys you dim bulb. How about justifying your idiocy. I put it to you that you are being ridiculous in every last constituent part of your argument. And you are showing gross ignorance of economics.

  165. Graeme Bird Says:

    You look like you are living on gay street to me Humphreys. But its your evasiveness, illogic and economic ignorance that I find offensive.

  166. anti-bird Says:

    Humphreys says:

    Bird is of course correct.

    To which Bird says:

    I put it to you that you are being ridiculous in every last constituent part of your argument

    LOL.

  167. Graeme Bird Says:

    You don’t kill a cap-and-kill by vigourously promoting a carbon tax. You get rid of the cap and kill by going after the science fraud. Occasionally you might mention that the carbon tax is less harmful than the cap and kill. But you don’t push for it on that basis.

    This is another constituent stupid building block. The idea that in dealing with frauds you get to nuance damage management.

    And you are way underestimating the harmfulness of a carbon tax. In 2009 a carbon tax is pure wealth destruction.

    I’ve got not problem with you occasionally mentioning that the carbon tax is not as poxy as the cap and kill. But in the context of fighting both. Its very clear that in 2009 a carbon tax is much worse than income tax dollar for dollar. But even to say that is to miss the point that to get what we are after it is spending cuts that we must promote.

  168. Tillman Says:

    But what about Operation Keelhaul?

  169. Graeme Bird Says:

    Yes I didn’t see that more reasonable post. But you see he’ll say that…. and then he’ll be off pushing for the carbon tax with vigour rather than beating up on the other CO2-bedwetters.

  170. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie

    The excise tax is a form of carbon tax by default you nit wit. And Humphreys has already mentioned that he doesn’t think AGW is as scary as made out. Same as my position too.

    So if the choice is a cap or a carb. tax what’s the problem with what John is advocating?

    Nothing, Zilch. You’re just jealous he’s much smarter than you that’s all.

    You’re just an angry conspiracy theorist.

  171. John Humphreys Says:

    Wales is a part of Britain. Like any good British chap, I’m part Anglo and part Celtic.

    Bird — I don’t think I agree with you when you say that a targeted consumption tax is worse than an income tax. While I would prefer to have neither, I find the income tax very objectionable. People should not be punished for working.

    I’m not sure which bit of my argument you want me to defend. All I have said is that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be better than the other options of an ETS or tax & spend. You agree with me.

    As far as I can tell, your only objection is that you wish I was using my considerable skills on a different question. 🙂

  172. graemebird Says:

    No no the excise tax is not a carbon tax. Not by default. Not via the route of your stupidity. Not by any means at all.

    The more you talk bootnigger, the less you learn.

  173. graemebird Says:

    “Bird — I don’t think I agree with you when you say that a targeted consumption tax is worse than an income tax.”

    Targeted consumption tax is not worse than an income tax. So it wasn’t just Cambria that fucked up. My God Humphreys. You are just so much more ignorant than even I thought.

    We are not talking about a targeted consumption tax you blockhead.

    We were talking about a carbon tax. Which is a targeted tax on capital accumulation.

    For fucksakes, can you at least get that right dummy.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

  174. graemebird Says:

    A targeted consumption tax would indeed normally be seen as a less direct attack on the process of capital accumulation than for example any tax on retained earnings. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT A CARBON TAX IS YOU TWO DOOFI!!!!!!!

    You guys are just so one-eye-blind to business spending, and capital markets. To understand economics you must change your entire focus.

  175. DH Says:

    “Wales is a part of Britain.”

    That’s what we like you to think. But only insofar as the Welsh are occasionally useful for providing coal, cannon-fodder and whatnot.

  176. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey,

    Are you ready to concede on the Archibald thread? Now is a good opportunity for you to show that you fess up like a man when wrong.

  177. the Anti- bird Says:

    He wants to apologize, Z-man. However he doesn’t want us to look.

    Birdie, we’re all looking away so don’t feel bashfu.

  178. John Humphreys Says:

    A carbon tax is not a targeted tax on capital accumulation. All taxes effect capital, so that is not a point of differentiation.

    The difference is that income tax is a tax on working… while a carbon tax is a tax on consuming certain products (eg, coal-electricity, fuel, aluminium).

    Both have costs. I would prefer a world where neither existed. But if I had to say which is worse, I think the income tax is worse than a consumption tax linked to carbon.

    Graeme — perhaps you should set up a group blog with this guy: http://rumcorps.net/mangledthoughts/

  179. Tillman Says:

    We were talking about a carbon tax. Which is a targeted tax on capital accumulation.

    No it isn’t.

    A carbon tax will increase capital accumulation, dummy. Because it causes the negative externalities to be captured in the price. Hence more efficient pricing. Hence greater capital accumulation.

    What part of that don’t you understand?

  180. graemebird Says:

    No no. A carbon tax IS IN FACT a targeted tax on capital accumulation.

    YOU ARE JUST BEING A FUCKING MORON HUMPHREYS. You are being so fucking dumb its almost impossible to deal with it. On what basis should I deal with someone that fucking dumb?

    An excise tax on narcotics, just for one example, would not affect general capital accumulation in anything like the way that a tax on CO2 will. Because CO2 in 2009 is central to energy production. And energy production is central to capital accumulation.

    Now there is no getting around that Humphreys you stupid cunt.

    I cannot imagine anyone I know so fucking dumb as to think that a CO2 tax is just like some other excise. Its not. Its a specific attack on capital accumulation.

  181. graemebird Says:

    Now Humphreys. Come back here you stupid cunt and admit you are wrong.

    A tax on retained earnings is more directly a tax on capital accumulation than is a targeted excise. Such as a tax on Chinese consumer goods if they didn’t retaliate for example.

    But a tax on CO2 is not an excise tax on a consumer good. Its fucking not Humphreys. Don’t pretend one thing is something else entirely. You are just being a stupid cunt mate.

    A tax on CO2 is specifically a tax on capital accumulation, much more severe than even a tax on retained earnings. Since it is a tax on energy and the capital accumulation necessary to produce more energy. Its worst disaster imagineable. And I’ve explained it clearly in the thread I linked and you should be able to understand it you fucking retard.

    Fuck you are a dumb cunt Humphreys. We went over this before and you still don’t get it.

    You are a fucking moron mate. With the flattest fucking learning curves imagineable.

  182. graemebird Says:

    Humphreys admit that you are wrong.

    And excise on a consumer good is entirely different. No cunt gobbles up CO2 as a consumer good. So how did you fucking mix them up you dumb cunt.

    And fucking Cambria made the exact same mistake. How can the two of you be so fucking stupid.

    My god you are an idiot Cambria. We are dealing with Bootniggers and Mugabe loyalists here. Cannot even tell a consumer excise tax from a producer-tax on capital accumulation.

    The leftists who want to destroy this country understand economics far better than Humphreys ever will.

  183. Lyam Says:

    Even the layman that I am understands that a carbon tax is no different than any other consumption tax.

  184. graemebird Says:

    “The difference is that income tax is a tax on working… while a carbon tax is a tax on consuming certain products (eg, coal-electricity, fuel, aluminium).”

    In most contexts DUMMY….. these things are PRODUCER-GOODS. My god you are a fuckwit.

    The deal with carbon-tax is that it is specifically a tax on producer goods….. even more specifically a tax on capital accumulation…….. and even even even even more a tax on capital accumulation of ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANIES.

    This is just a fucking death-blow to the Australian economy. You don’t understand economics Humphreys. Learn the material or exit public fucking debate you cunt.

    You are a menace.

  185. anti-bird Says:

    Stop being a betdwetter, Bird and apologize for your complete stupidity. It’s not funny anymore.

  186. graemebird Says:

    “Lyam Says:
    February 25, 2009 at 5:16 am
    Even the layman that I am understands that a carbon tax is no different than any other consumption tax.”

    No its isn’t YOU ARE NOT A LAYMAN. YOU ARE A FUCKWIT.

    This is a direct tax on capital accumulation. And far more so for capital to do with energy production.

    Another incredibly dumb cunt. You had no excuse to get that wrong Lyam. More primitive than Winchester described you.

  187. graemebird Says:

    Obviously a carbon tax does not resemble in any way an excise or a consumption tax. That ought to be fucking obvious. Lyam. will you fuck off if you are going to be a moron or a lying cunt.

    Its imperative that we convince this public menace to change his act. Carbon tax will damage this country and that may not concern you taxeaters but its important.

  188. graemebird Says:

    Now is there anything here that some of you dumb cunts STILL don’t understand.

    You are not magic. Calling a carbon tax a consumer excise tax does not make it so. If you wanted a consumer excise tax you could just have a consumer excise tax.

    But a carbon tax is a tax on capital accumulation. And more forcefully a tax on capital accumulation for energy production.

  189. anti-bird Says:

    Birdie:

    Is the excise tax a tax on the capital accumulation on oil companies? They seem to manage, you idiot. In “fat” they are quite possibly one of the most capital intensive industries in the world, you nimrod.

    You really have a limited knowledge of economics don’t you?

    No amount of abuse camouflage cover for your lack of understanding.

  190. Lyam Says:

    It’s no menace DUMMY it’s just a way of introducing the cost of pollution into the market.

    It will naturally push for better fuel efficiency in cars (and perhaps make hybrids really attractive price wise), better insulation in houses (and make solar panels attractive price wise), more efficiency in electric appliances, etc etc etc

    And even if the pollution argument doesn’t talk to you, take the lesser dependency on fossil fuels in general and oil in particular.

  191. graemebird Says:

    Just in case you failed to get WHY a carbon tax is a tax on capital accumulation, and worse then a tax on retained earnings, I’ll make the link again:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    Now I think its explained very clearly here. So you are all dumb cunts. But there really is no excuse not to be able to understand this time.

    Gerry Jackson tried to explain matters to you dummies before. How long does it take you guys to comprehend something as simple as this?

  192. DH Says:

    Can’t we just get back to talking about the Lizard People on Mars?

    Must dash – the black helicopters are coming.

  193. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    Bravo Mr Bird

    you have shown these white-anting foreigners up for what they really are. I only wish I had your technical skill in economics.

  194. graemebird Says:

    Well I hope more of the public will be able to understand the good stuff once its presented to them.

    You imagine how things are for Cougar Energy. If their share price was five times as high they could issue more shares and start accumulating capital in order to cut recurring costs in the generation of syngas from previously uneconomic deposits many metres underground.

    At the moment they can bring up the syngas and use it to run a turbine and put electricity into the grid. But with even more capital accumulation they could likely turn it into synthetic diesel. Even for export.

    And with those mini-nuclear power stations that will come available they could start bringing the cost down below the Arabs oil prices in all likelihood.

    But this all takes capital accumulation. And the carbon tax will kill this. It won’t lead to more nuclear power. It will kill that dead too. It will kill all energy production. But Humphreys and them conclude that we’ll just substitute across from one energy form to another. This is not realistic at present and he’s treating the whole deal as if they were consumer goods.

    I mean the extreme putting a square peg in a round hole is incredible. Its not merely him being one eye blind to industrial concerns. He’s forcefully trying to pretend that CO2 is akin to a consumer good.

  195. Lyam Says:

    Don’t underestimate yourself Winchester, any potted plant has more technical skills in economics than our Birdy. (That’s why I love him, he makes me feel smart :-))

  196. Lyam Says:

    “He’s forcefully trying to pretend that CO2 is akin to a consumer good.”

    Of course not you twit! But coal, oil aluminum etc are consumer goods.

  197. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    Mr Bird
    I only wish I could raise a capital fund among my fellow grazier friends in the League of Rights to support your efforts at disseminating your work amongst the young but alas many of them have moved on the other world which sometimes I think is just as well seeing how lamentable things currently are. While I may be destined for genteel poverty myself as I may have to sell the family farm to pay my legal fees over these firearms charges that the Communist government has set me up over.

  198. Winchester Quartermain Says:

    You shall not speak about the fine and wise Mr Bird this way, bog-Irishman. If I were but 2 decades younger I would have challenged you to a duel. Know your place at least, young man.

  199. John Humphreys Says:

    Bird: Because CO2 in 2009 is central to energy production. And energy production is central to capital accumulation.

    Many things are important with regards to capital accumulation. The most obvious is saving/investment. Any tax on savings/investment (including an income tax) is a direct tax on capital accumulation. Further, all consumption taxes decrease the potential return on capital goods and so (1) reduce the value of those goods; and (2) decrease the incentive to invest in new capital.

    Yes, a carbon tax would also harm capital accumulation. But there is no reason to get hysterical about it. Don’t be scared.

    Bird: No cunt gobbles up CO2 as a consumer good.

    Actually, many people use coal-electricity and fuel as a consumer good.

    Bird: In most contexts DUMMY….. these things [electricity, fuel, aluminium] are PRODUCER-GOODS.

    I think you misunderstand the economic nomenclature here. When people refer to a consumption tax they do not mean only those goods sold in the retail market. It is true that some goods are used as inputs into the production of other goods. The GST already applies to these goods just as it does to other goods.

    Changing the GST on electricity and fuel (linked with income tax cuts) would hurt some people and help some people. It would decrease the viability of some capital and increase the viability of other capital. It is not clear to me that a non-uniform GST (biased against carbon) is worse than an income tax.

    Graeme — if you really think that a carbon price is going to lead to massive problems then we have several natural experiments to work with. Australia will likely have a carbon price by 2010. The EU and Norway already have carbon prices. State your prediction. Name the doom which you think will come, and then we’ll check it against reality.

    Don’t be scared.

  200. Jason Soon Says:

    Brilliant idea, you Zimbabwean-Martian

    Why don’t we make this into a bet?

    Birdy how much are you willing to bet GDP or whatever measure will fall by once we have carbon trading?

  201. graemebird Says:

    Check this video out Winchester and others:

    “http://www.carbonenergy.com.au/index.php/mediaroom/multimedia/videos”

    The third video down. The capital accumulation to do this sort of thing and to further process this syngas to diesel is what carbon tax will inhibit. You want our guys accumulating capital in such a way as to become the lowest cost producer of synthetic diesel. This can easily be done if they have the added assistance of nuclear power, particularly portable nuclear power.

    But the carbon tax will kill nuclear power, will destroy the share price of these outfits, will inhibit these guys ability to raise funds, will stop them from becoming the lowest cost producer…. and for what???

    Just so fucking Humphreys and these other traitors can triangulate between camps and make outrageous fraudulent campaigns bipartisan.

  202. graemebird Says:

    “Birdy how much are you willing to bet GDP or whatever measure will fall by once we have carbon trading?”

    I’ll make that bet just as soon as your occult enquiries tell you what real GDR would have been otherwise ……… (stupid gook cunt).

  203. graemebird Says:

    So I’ve explained it clearly. There is just no getting around what I’ve explained…..

    Maybe in 2060 if they were turning out Thorium and uranium portable nuclear plants like sausages, they were getting low carbon clathrates off the ocean floor, and they had boron fission/fusion on the fly using dense plasma focus…. Under those circumstances you might be able to substitute across like you could for some consumer good subject to exise.

    Obviously there is on chance of that here because of the massive capital accumulation needed.

    So I’m right. This is important. And the stupid traitor gook cunt tries to distract people with a spurious bet.

  204. Jason Soon Says:

    so are you saying your theories aren’t testable and are therefore unscientific?

    right …

  205. anti-bird Says:

    Yea, We have to wait until 2060 to figure if Bird is right. Good one bird.

    Another fine mess you’ve got yourself into. Any other bright ideas

  206. graemebird Says:

    Your theory of whatever the GDR would have been is not testable you stupid gook cunt.

  207. graemebird Says:

    Look you fucking stupid cunt Cambria. We know you and Humphreys are wrong. I’ve proved it outright. I was trying to bring up the sort of example where your wrong thinking would not be so harmful you stupid boot nigger cunt.

  208. Jason Soon Says:

    can someone please explain what the fuck is a ‘boot nigger’
    and what’s Cougar Electricity? Is it an electricity company run by MILFs?

  209. graemebird Says:

    I actually favour abiotic oil theory. Which is why I always say “decadal” peak oil.

    If this is right we could beat our 2005 oil output be developing a whole new generation of extraction gear. I think we could do this. We ought to do this.

    CARBON TAX WOULD KILL THIS OUTRIGHT.

    Since Carbon tax is a tax on energy its a tax on capital. And a company that was prospecting and developing the new equipment might not be making a profit for a very long time and so would not be subject to tax on retained profit..

    But the carbon-tax would be right there from minute one. A killer of capital accumulation. And the spawner of an army of intrusive carbon nazis getting in our shit.

    And why?

    Simply because assholes like the ones I have to deal with won’t admit when their reasoning is wrong and when they don’t have any fucking evidence whatsoever.

  210. John Humphreys Says:

    Sorry Bird… but I schooled your sorry arse above (6:02am). I now own you. You may call me “master” from now on.

  211. DH Says:

    “And the stupid traitor gook cunt …”

    I’m sure it’s nothing personal Jason.

  212. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    what does the GDR (German Democratic Republic) have to do with anything?

    The Berlin Wall collapsed long ago, mate, however unfortunate you may find it.

  213. graemebird Says:

    Cambria is a boot nigger.

  214. graemebird Says:

    So you dumb cunts are proved wrong. And all you can do is get in the way with unfunny gags.

    Just admit you are wrong.

    The carbon tax is not a consumer excise tax. Its a targeted capital destruction tax.

  215. Jason Soon Says:

    Are current petrol excise taxes capital taxes?

  216. graemebird Says:

    Humphreys you are fucking wrong. And you have been proved wrong.

    STOP PROMOTING THE CARBON TAX YOU CUNT!!!!!!!!

    You have been proved wrong so stop doing the wrong thing.

    This is totally destructive on your part.

    You will be killing people over this. Because when people are impoverished they sometimes die.

  217. John Humphreys Says:

    The income tax is a capital destruction tax. The GST on all intermediate goods is also a capital destruction tax. The current fuel tax is a capital destruction tax.

    But Bird insists that only a carbon tax will ruin the economy.

    Don’t be scared.

  218. graemebird Says:

    The rest of you to. Just take a break from nihilism for a tiny little while. And so some responsibility. He has been proved wrong. His campaign is incredibly harmful. And its sickening to see you people let him pretend that he is doing an OK thing.

    Attempt to be responsible adults. He is assisting people to ruin this country. And the rest of you foreigners and taxeaters appear to want to help him break the back of your average taxpayer.

  219. graemebird Says:

    I’ve been fucking warning about this two straight years now and you people simply keep going with this crap. It seems like Humphreys will use anything he can to get his name in print or get in the paper. Even if it means destroying his adopted country through triangulation.

  220. Lyam Says:

    nihilism
    noun [U] SPECIALIZED
    a belief that all political and religious organizations are bad, or a system of thought which says that there are no principles or beliefs which have any meaning or can be true

    It seems to me you are the closest thing there is to a nihilist on this forum. (Don’t use words you don’t understand.)

  221. graemebird Says:

    “The income tax is a capital destruction tax. The GST on all intermediate goods is also a capital destruction tax. The current fuel tax is a capital destruction tax”

    Yes Yes Yes thats true SO CAMPAIGN AGAINST THESE TAXES YOU STUPID CUNT.

    What you say is true. But the carbon tax is much worse. As I have proven absolutely.

    Don’t be an advocate if you are going to refuse to learn to your subject.

    Now stop it.

    You’ve never once had a case for this.

    You brought it out during the election for no reason at all.

    WHY ARE YOU DOING IT HUMPHREYS. YOU HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG. PROVEN WRONG 100%

    You didn’t have a case two years ago. You didn’t have a case during the election. You didn’t have a case when you argued with Gerry. And you don’t have a case now.

    So why are you doing it. Just to get your name in the paper.

    You have been proven wrong.

  222. graemebird Says:

    “Are current petrol excise taxes capital taxes?”

    They are not nearly as directly destructive of capital as a carbon tax. But since a lot of the cost falls on business spending they aren’t real real great.

  223. graemebird Says:

    You didn’t make any sensible argument at all at 6.02am you stupid cunt. You seemed to be saying that economic law doesn’t apply since after all coal can be a consumer good as well.

    Your argument was senseless and absolutist and you have been proven wrong and you ought to abandon this obsessive campaign of yours.

  224. graemebird Says:

    So none of you have a case and yet you just want to continue supporting this science fraud campaign, in this mindlessly destructive way, and simply to get a kick of getting your name mentioned in high places by leftists, as if you want to be arbiter between two tribes.

  225. graemebird Says:

    The thing is the carbon tax will work. It will destroy our industry. So it won’t raise much money since it in fact reduce our CO2 effectively. And then you will have no substitution away from income tax. All damage and no revenue.

    But was never a substitution available to us. This is just a ludicrous fantasy coming from Humphreys and Soon.

    Like you give the thieves another tax and they hand back the old one.

    You guys are just such dumb cunts.

    Carbon taxes will reduce revenues from all other taxes since it will progressively destroy capital accumulation.

  226. Lyam Says:

    As Humphrey has already pointed out, the EU has carbon tax and they don’t seem to have fallen behind third world countries.

  227. JohnZ Says:

    Hurry up with your retraction on the Archy thread turkey, everyone can see you’ve been defeated comprehensively.

    Unfortunately you seem incapable of admitting that you’re wrong. Grow a pair.

  228. Jason Soon Says:

    Z

    try and come up with a bet on the carbon tax issue that might get him to put his money where his mouth is

  229. graemebird Says:

    Bets won’t change anything. I’ve already proved it. This trolling around for a bet is just more of an indication that you don’t understand economics. No bet could undo the reality of it.

  230. graemebird Says:

    Now will you stop promoting a carbon tax!!!!!!!!!

    You never once had a reason to do it in the first fucking place.

    You’ll wind up with no revenue coming from the carbon tax, no substitution away from any other tax, and just general massive damage to the economy.

    Think of it like this. If you put up trade barriers between two countries. At first you get the goods and the revenue. But as time goes on you lose both the revenue and the goods. And you are left with no revenue and only economic damage.

    This carbon tax will destroy capital accumulation, will reduce revenue from all other sources, and in the end it will destroy its own revenue, and you won’t be left with any revenue, just the economic damage.

  231. Adrien Says:

    Quartermain – I only wish I had your technical skill in economics.
    .
    Well that’s easy Quartermain old porridge, just follow these simple instructions.

    1.Place yourself in a start-up poition 10 metres from brick wall.

    2. Ready, set, go – run as fast as you can toward the wall.

    3. Ensure head is bowed down and aimed directly at wall.

    4. CRASH!!!

    5. Repeat 20 times a day for a decade.

    And you’ll be as smart as Graeme is.

    Now do be a love and fix the barely bloody drinkable. And try a different wax in your moustaches. You positively droop.

  232. Adrien Says:

    Graeme, darling, you’re so sexy when you go purple in the face railing against taxes and commies. You’;d be King Bear at the Mardis Gras if only there was enough latex in the world to cover your Hugh JAss.

  233. graemebird Says:

    It just shows how you far you non-breeders, living on gay street, living off government largesse, are so far removed from the concerns and realities of your benefactors. You really don’t care. You are pushing to absolutely trash this country and you really could not care less.

  234. anti-bird Says:

    You are pushing to absolutely trash this country and you really could not care less.

    Yea , right. how many times have heard that said in different variations… commie.

  235. JohnZ Says:

    It just shows how you far you non-breeders

    Uhhh turkey, last time I checked the closest your seed ever got to an egg was when you beat off while eating Sunday breakfast.

  236. graemebird Says:

    Well you are boot nigger. You are being a complete cunt. You never had a case and you don’t have one now and yet you are still pushing for this massive capital destruction and basically affirming a science fraud.

    They will get there cap and kill thanks to your efforts. And they’ll turn it into a UN tax if you keep triangulating with these people like a stupid wog traitor.

  237. Adrien Says:

    Z – You think that’s too much information. This is too much information.

    Graeme I’m not gay. But unlike you I’m not a racist, redneck, backward, trogladyte so I feel comfortable pushing your repressed homosexual button.

    I know it’s painful for you. That’s why I dod it. 🙂

    All those years with the kids singing Fat Fat The Water-rat and then all those boys laughing at your shriveled little weaner in Soggy Sao games.

    And let’s not forget all those trips you make to Seamen Gardens public loo for men between 6 and 9 every night. And thus far the closest you’ve come to scoring is when that dude’s rottweiler got off the leash and did the wild thing on your leg.

    But don’t give up hope. Apparently Leo Mauve the fabulous Surry Hills hair-stylist wants your Hugh Jass for next year’s Mardis Gras. He want a flat that feature a balloon that looks like an arse.

    And arse that looks like a balloon might be just the ticket.

  238. Adrien Says:

    So if Joe’s a boot nigger what kind of nigger are you Graeme? What’s the appropriate racial slur for someone whose family ruts waterhogs all the time.

    How is that waterhog Graeme? Have more luck with the waterhog than the rent-boys at Seamen Gardens?

    Just come out and say it Graeme: Scram: I’m a bum-loving fag and I want a big muscle mary to fuck me!

    You’ll feel much better. 🙂

  239. Jason Soon Says:

    so you’re not prepared to back up your theories with predictions

    right.

  240. Adrien Says:

    Graeme says: I mean the extreme putting a square peg in a round hole is incredible.
    .
    So you do have a sex life! Well done. Please don’t share and more details.

    But do tell us who the lucky blind mutant with the severe mental disabilities and no sense of smell is.

  241. graemebird Says:

    Who said that you stupid gook cunt. I predict it will still be a massively destructive tax when they implement it. And that the thought of it is doing massive damage even now.

  242. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, are you ready to concede on the Archy thread?

  243. graemebird Says:

    Are you ready to fucking concede you stupid cunt. If it wasn’t a good study how come he was right ahead of everyone else.

  244. JohnZ Says:

    Turkey, I would like to bet with you on this carbon tax. How much do you expect GDP will decline when it is introduced?

  245. JohnZ Says:

    The shorter turkey “methodology is irrelevant provided I get the result I want”.

    (by the way, the world is still warming)

  246. Adrien Says:

    And welcome to The Science Show with your host Hugh Jass.
    .
    HJ: Hello boys and girls we’re here to talk about science. And today we have little Jenny who won first prize in her school. Hello Jenny.
    .
    LJ: Hello Mr Jass.
    .
    HJ: What do have there Jenny?
    .
    LJ: I have an olive jar; six large marshmallows; a piece of cardboard cut into a circle that will fit into the jar; rocks or other weights; a ruler; paper and pencils.
    .
    HJ: And why do have all that stuff Jenny.
    .
    I’m going to show you how glaciers compact and demonstrate why we need to be concerned about global warming.
    .
    HJ: That’s not evidence.
    .
    LJ: Sure it, it’s an experiment.
    .
    HJ: NO it isn’t you anti-science little bootnigger, show us the evidence.
    .
    LJ: (Beginning to cry) BUt this is science. You don;t even know what I’m going to do.
    .
    HJ: NO. You are lying. Science isn’t about ‘experiments’ and ‘theories’ and ‘verifiable data’ it’s about my half-remembered bullshit from the 1920s when I majored in Sheep Dip and Economics at the University of Wakiki-Ha-Taurumoua Baa Baa Baa which was then the second best uni in the entire paddock. And that isn’t science you little cunt.
    .
    LJ: That sounds like a stupid university. And you’re just a blowhard jerk who’s trying to cover up his total lack of knowledge about anything by swearing all the time.
    .
    HJ: No you are lying you little cunt. Now show us the evidence!!!

  247. graemebird Says:

    No you are being an idiot Z. Archibalds study was superior and a good example of the cost-effectiveness of private science.

    Adrien as pointless and boring as usual.

  248. Adrien Says:

    Graeme of course it’s fucking pointless.

    There’s no fucking point debating with you. Because you never actually present an argument. What you do is place the burden of argument entirely on your opponents and then simply dismiss anything they say without and clear rebuttal to justify it.

    You might find it boring. But sarcasm is only the lowest form of wit to its victims.

    You are one of life’s victims.

    NOW ADMIT THAT YOU ARE A LEATHER QUEEN WHO DREAMS OF A GUHE MAN CALLED BRUNO NAILING YOU IN PUBLIC PARKS

    Faggot.

  249. graemebird Says:

    So what do you not understand about consistency and cost-effectiveness.

    Its just incredible with you parasites, what a different world you live in. All our dead wood live in an entirely different world.

  250. Adrien Says:

    So what do you not understand about consistency

    This:

    1. There is no global warming
    2. There is global warming but we’re not causing it
    3. There is global warming, we are causing it but that’s a good thing in this brutal and pulverizing ice age.

    Which is it Turkey?

  251. Adrien Says:

    Graeme Bird
    Translation Services
    Doc 11396817

    Its just incredible with you parasites, what a different world you live in. All our dead wood live in an entirely different world.

    Should read:

    Waaaah!!! Boo-hoo-hoo. It’s not fair, it’s not, it’s not, it’s NOT!!! These guys have real girlfriends that don’t require inflating, they have waists and hair and more than $5 in their pocket. It’s not my fault I’m a big fat loser.

  252. graemebird Says:

    Your translations are hopeless. What I mean is that I’m stunned by our parasites inability to mentally transcend their parasitical status. Z does not seem to so much as register the idea of cost-effectiveness in scientific enquiry.

  253. Adrien Says:

    What I mean is that I’m stunned by our parasites inability to mentally transcend their parasitical status.

    Oh really?

    ‘Cause we’re all stunned by your complete incapacity to engage in honest argument, to actually face salient and inconvenient points pertaining to it and to go through life completely unaware of what an intellectually dishonest lame duck you are.

    So I guess we’re all stunned ‘ey?

  254. jc Says:

    You know birdie, you’re freaking disgrace to Australia. Hopefully John Key will listen to me and forcefully take you back on the prison plane.

    The Chinese people through their hard work and intelligence have made all our lives better by producing goods a fractions of the price than otherwise. They have changed the face of consumer mass production endlessly better.

    Every western consumer has been enriched through their efforts. I’m not suggesting we should be ever thankful. However you think of that country as somehow evil when all they have done is not improve their lives through wars and plunder but doing it in the way we have shown them in the west. Peacefully and through exchange. You’re a freaking moron to be talking about them the way you are.

  255. graemebird Says:

    The same post on two threads.

    No no Cambria. Governments ought not be able to buy our gear. Taiwanese millionaires yes. Communist government no.

    The answer must be no. The answer must always be no.

  256. Pink Flamingo Says:

    Well Birdy I said no last night when you cornered me in the hot tub but you wouldn’t take no for an answer, you big brute.

  257. The anti-bird Says:

    Z
    can I suggest we add the Martian pyramids thread? I’ve been waiting for that one and frankly I’m more than a little surprised you haven’t. Is it a strategic decision on your part to release threads over time?

    Thanks Z.

  258. graemebird Says:

    If we have a Martian pyramid thread will you make an actual argument?

    There was never a big bang. And so life has had far more time to evolve than its been thought in recent decades. It is therefore no grave surprise that for a short time, perhaps millions of years ago, some people found themselves stuck out that way and having to make the best of things.

    Probably, just law of averages, our solar system would likely have to get visitors every few million years.

  259. TerjeP (say tay-a) Says:

    This place could be fun.

  260. Tillman Says:

    Graeme,

    what do you think of this:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/science/earth/25hype.html

    Do you think you have managed to strike a happy medium?

  261. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    Can you give us a concise history of these Explodians with a timeline if possible so we can start relating it to whatever astronomical and paleontological discoveries are on record? I think it’s time we started testing this hypothesis of yours. Do you think the Explodians had any influence on the Egyptians and Aztecs?

  262. Tillman Says:

    hmmm…. was brontosaurus an explodian?

    how can you rule out the possibility that brontosaurus had such a long neck not because earth was smaller but because he came from Mars?

    I think you would find that Mr B would be would well suited to Mars. I can just picture a bunch of those critters foraging throught the worm tubes.

  263. Tillman Says:

    how about this, Graeme:

    http://www.erblist.com/abg/gnanatomy.html

  264. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme — I answered your questions, corrected your mistakes and explained everything in a simple way. You still don’t understand.

    First, you have agreed with me that tax is better than trading. Your complaint is simply that I should be looking at a different question.

    Second, you admit that all taxes hurt capital. You simply assert that one type of tax will have super-super-bad effects, but you give no reason and the economics is against you and the evidence is against you. In fact, a carbon tax will have costs but these costs will probably be about the same as many other taxes.

    Third, you say that a carbon price will be super effective. We already know the price elasticity of demand for fuel and electricity and it is about -0.4 to -0.7… which means that for every 10% price increase the quantity demanded will decrease by 4% and 7%. It’s relatively inelastic so we won’t see a huge change in behaviour. Don’t be scared.

    As you have refused to use rational logic, I will stop treating you like an adult now.

  265. Lyam Says:

    Thanks John,

    Graeme : That’s what I call modeling

    John, do we have an idea of the different impacts of carbon tax on costs in the various sectors of the economy (heavy industry, agriculture, catering/restaurants,tourism, households etc…)

  266. Uninterested observer Says:

    shouldn’t a picture of our inspiration adorn the front of this blog?

    Perhaps next to a picture of this guy

  267. graemebird Says:

    No didn’t correct any mistakes of mine you economics know-nothing Humphreys because I didn’t make any mistakes. LYING WILL NOT MAKE YOUR IDIOCY ANY BETTER.

    Next you lie and claim that I SIMPLY ASSERT that carbon tax will do more harm. This is a childish lie on your part. What I did was explained clearly why this is the case. A carbon tax is a direct attack on wealth. Since its a direct attack on capital accumulation….. AND ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO ENERGY PRODUCTION.

    Just to prove you are lying about this “simple assertion” business here is one of the many times that I’ve attempted to explain this to your economically-incompetent know-nothing self.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    “Second, you admit that all taxes hurt capital. You simply assert that one type of tax will have super-super-bad effects, but you give no reason and the economics is against you and the evidence is against you. ”

    So your first lie was I asserted rather than explained clearly. Your second lie was that I did not give reasons. WHAT A FUCKING CUNT YOU ARE LYING TO THAT EXTENT. So you lie, ignore the specific explanation I did give. And you come to an economically-ignorant conclusion.

    You don’t understand economics John. Alright compared to Mark Bahnisch you might have the edge. But fundamentally you don’t understand your subject. And you are a liar and that doesn’t help.

    “hird, you say that a carbon price will be super effective. We already know the price elasticity of demand for fuel and electricity and it is about -0.4 to -0.7… which means that for every 10% price increase the quantity demanded will decrease by 4% and 7%”

    You cannot say that without specifying a time period so you are full of shit. And we are not just talking about the consumer market for electricity. So once again you have betrayed your Keynesian household bias. I tried without success to shift your ignorant focus to wealth creation via capital accumulation in industry.

    Lyam don’t be an idiot. He’s just made a fool of himself.

  268. The anti-bird Says:

    thanks for the explanation, jh. great points. try to ignore the peanut gallery types.

  269. Fyodor Says:

    As you have refused to use rational logic, I will stop treating you like an adult now.

    *sound of fractional-reserve penny dropping*

  270. graemebird Says:

    See your lack of logic here. A thing is what it is. A is A.

    You just equated A to B. You were talking about CO2 release. And then you suddenly equated it with electricity demand. Two different things. The whole point about carbon tax is that we will see a different type of electricity generation. We will see all our precious investment going to more expensive forms of energy generation that lead to less CO2 output. It will be effective and its effectiveness will be the killer.

    So as it becomes more effective as an investment distorter and wealth-destroyer it will become less effective as a revenue-raiser. Hence where the hell is your substitution away from income tax.

    You start off with some alleged ability to substitute. Which is an wholly naieve idea in the first place. But as time goes on you lose that substitution.

    Carbon tax starts of even worse than a tax on retained earning right from day one FOR REASONS EXPLAINED CAREFULLY (YOU PATHETIC LIAR) but it just gets worse dollar for dollar since as it does more harm it raises less and less revenue.

    You have placed yourself in the same ignorant camp as Nick Gruen falling for his own computer model on the alleged benefits of tariffs.

    If we put a tariff specifically on Chinese consumer goods only, and substituted that tax by cutting a tax on retained earnings at first we would have a net gain so long as they didn’t retaliate. I would never make naieve assumptions like this but you seem to love naieve assumptions.

    Since the one tax is less bad at first then the other, for wealth creation purposes, we would likely have a gain in growth. But here is the thing. The longer the tariff was left on (elasticities must relate to a time period DUMMY. In the long run all virtually all demand curves are elastic) the less revenue it would raise and the more investment distortion it would create. Hence in the long run we would get all the damage without the tax substitution (bear in mind there is no such thing as this tax substitution).

    So what might seem like a good idea at first is a disaster and the fact is there is no getting away for the need for spending cuts.

    So in the same way this carbon tax cannot be seen as a direct substitution tax raiser. In the final analysis you will all of the damage and very little of the revenue.

    This is not an assertion. The reasons are explained carefully. DON’T LIE ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING AGAIN HUMPHREYS YOU ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHING.

  271. graemebird Says:

    “Thanks for the explanation, jh. great points. try to ignore the peanut gallery types.”

    No you stupid boot-nigger cunt. He didn’t make a single good point. HE DIDN’T MAKE A SINGLE GOOD POINT HE JUST LIED.

    All Humphreys did was:

    1. Tell lies.

    2. Further display his ignorance of economics by revealing that he thought that demand elasticity could be divorced from the concept of time.

    Cambria. Do you have to make a fool of yourself as soon as Humphreys does?

    You are embarrassing mate.

    If you think he made a good point try and explain it in your own words. You cannot sustain that he made any good point at all without lying just as Humphreys has done.

  272. Uninterested observer Says:

    shouldn’t a picture of our inspiration adorn the front of this blog?

  273. graemebird Says:

    So he equates CO2 output to electricity demand. He claims that his own policy option will be not harmful on the basis that he reckons it will be ineffectual…….. Which is wrong. It will be effectual alright. It will reduce CO2 via wealth destruction and malinvestment.

    And he could not best my explanation so he just lied and pretended that no explanation was given.

    THIS TIME HUMPHREYS ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG OR ADDRESS MY EXPLANATION. As opposed to lying and claiming I simply asserted gear WITHOUT MAKING that explanation.

    Imagine that. Cambria such a dim wit he fell for Humphreys lying and for the Humphreys ignorance about the concept of elasticity of demand.

  274. Uninterested observer Says:

    hey graeme

    is this your long lost twin?

    http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/

  275. The anti-bird Says:

    If you think he made a good point try and explain it in your own words.

    Why? JH has explained it well. It would be just a waste of time to repeat it.

  276. graemebird Says:

    Yes it was pretty bad when the puffy photo showed me that I had gotten uglier than Lambert. No in fact it is YOU Cambria, that follows your dwarf master around at the end of a rope. You agree with all his policy prescriptions.

    JOHN HUMPHREYS AS THE TRIANGULATER FROM HELL.

    So here is Humphreys trying to argue, unsuccessfully, that the carbon tax will not do much harm since he now says it will be ineffectual. His argument that it would be ineffectual is idiotic and wrong. Its a static argument as usual. Humphreys makes static arguments that don’t include time and capital spending in their reckoning.

    But he says that here. No doubt he will tell the alarmists that the carbon tax would be powerfully effective. Which of course it will be. Its powerful effectiveness will come from misdirecting investment funds and from destroying wealth and energy production.

    But Humphreys will have it that it will be powerfully effective at reducing CO2 AND!!!!!!! that it will be a marvellous revenue raiser allowing substitution away from other taxes.

    BUT IT CANNOT DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME.

    As the malinvestment and the wealth destruction continues, the effectiveness of this tax as a revenue raiser must reduce. Hence as time goes on we get more and more economic damage and less and less government revenue. Until such time as the level of damage as a numerator over the amount of revenue as a denominator leads to an awesomely high figure of economic wreckage as compared to revenue raising.

    So we see that John fucked up incredibly in his analysis. Since he only thinks static-equilibrium of output.

    He never thinks of TIME and the flow of CAPITAL GOODS SPENDING.

  277. graemebird Says:

    “If you think he made a good point try and explain it in your own words.

    Why? JH has explained it well. It would be just a waste of time to repeat it.”

    No thats a lie you boot-nigger cunt.

    He didn’t make a valid point at all. And if you explained it in your own words you would see that.

    WHAT WAS HIS VALID POINT YOU PATHETIC BRAIN-DEAD FUCKWIT?????

    This is all he did.

    1. He lied that I had made a certain assertion without an explanation.

    2. He equated electricity demand with CO2 output.

    3. He showed that he didn’t understand the concept of elasticity by quoting a figure and naievely assuming that this would hold over time.

    SO WHAT WAS HIS VALID POINT???? LETS HAVE IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS CAMBRIA YOU BLOCKHEAD!!!!!!

    All he did was display his tendentiousness, dishonesty, and ignorance of economics.

  278. graemebird Says:

    He’s a fucking baby. He’s a juvenile. He’s been proved wrong outright. And he refuses to admit he’s wrong. And now he’s doing a runner.

  279. The anti-bird Says:

    he hasn’t lied at all birdie. In fact he was actually pleasant to you in addition to conveying he well thought out view.

    good enough for me. you lost.

  280. Lyam Says:

    Birdy birdy,

    “So here is Humphreys trying to argue, unsuccessfully, that the carbon tax will not do much harm since he now says it will be ineffectual.”

    He never said carbon tax will be ineffectual since he anticipates a reduction in consumption of oil and electricity (“price elasticity of demand for fuel and electricity and it is about -0.4 to -0.7… which means that for every 10% price increase the quantity demanded will decrease by 4% and 7%”).

    What he said is that it would not result in massive change in behavior.

    Finally, as anti-bird already said, JH stayed gracious with you, he explained things very clearly and made his point.

    It is obvious for everybody on this forum that you don’t know more about economics than I do, the difference is I have no shame in admitting it 🙂

  281. Tillman Says:

    See your lack of logic here. A thing is what it is. A is A.

    You just equated A to B. You were talking about CO2 release. And then you suddenly equated it with electricity demand.

    This, coming from someone who sees a picture of a brontosaurus with a long neck and infers from that the earth is expanding, contrary to all known laws of science.

  282. graemebird Says:

    Stop fucking lying you boot nigger cunt!

    Humphreys lied.

    He claimed that I merely asserted the relative harmfulness of carbon tax without an explanation. That was a lie. So you lied Cambria.

    Retract your lie Cambria.

    Now Humphreys didn’t have comeback. He simply lied. Then he equated CO2 with electricity demand. Then he showed specific ignorance on the concept of elasticity. He claimed that the carbon tax wouldn’t destroy wealth on grounds that it will be ineffectual.

    His claims that the carbontax will be ineffectual were spurious based on a misunderstanding of the concept of elasticity and the tendentious equating of CO2 output and electricity demand.

  283. Tillman Says:

    Stop fucking lying you boot nigger cunt!

    Sorry Graeme, which boot nigger cunt were you referring to? There are a few of them hanging around these parts, and they are all recalcitrant dissemblers.

  284. graemebird Says:

    Retract your lie Cambria you brainless cunt!!!!

    So I’ve proven Humphreys wrong. He had no comeback except to lie and further show his ignorance.

    He argued that CO2 won’t destroy wealth on the incorrect grounds that it will prove ineffectual. And so after that where is his argument? He didn’t have one. He was proved wrong so he lied.

    Same old cycle with him. Now he’ll lay low for awhile and then he’ll be back triangulating after a quick break.

    He is angling to be like Annan. Bigshot for a year through triangulation. In sober reality Annan wasn’t fit to wash a real scientists feet. But through triangulation he suddenly was elevated to world authority by the sort of shenanigans that Humphreys is now trying on.

  285. graemebird Says:

    “He never said carbon tax will be ineffectual ….”

    Yes he did you fucking idiot. That was his entire counterargument. That was the only argument he had. Totally spurious that it was. He equated CO2 release with power production and by saying that power production wasn’t all that elastic he thought he was countering my argument of Carbon tax being a destroyer of capital accumulation.

    That was his only comeback. Totally illogical because one thing is not the other. He was saying that it won’t be damaging because it will be ineffectual.

    But it won’t be ineffectual. It will be powerfully effective. It will reduce CO2 release by gross malinvestment and wealth destruction.

  286. The anti-bird Says:

    Birdie:

    I’d be happy to retract any lie. You know that, but if I said was going to retract something i would be lying.

    John was very pleasant to you, i think you ought to try and be the same back.

    John is making some very strong points and I have to agree with him. you on the other hand aren’t, so I’m sorry, you have lost this argument too.

    Time to rethink your theories birdie.

  287. graemebird Says:

    Apart from last year and for some time in the 70’s we have lived all our lives with pretty cheap energy. But thirty years of destructiveness in this regard has paid dividends. Energy production is the tallest pole in the tent. Its the thing that must come first. But if you spend 30 years damaging it, problems may not show up for a long time. The problems don’t show up for a long time but are hard to deal with when they do show up.

    No amount of tax substitution would save us if our energy production fell to pieces. There will be no tax substitution since the carbon tax will destroy the revenue from other taxes.

  288. graemebird Says:

    JOHN WAS PROVED WRONG AND HE LIED. He lied then he made a totally ignorant argument which was effectively no argument at all. He argued that his tax won’t destroy wealth on the grounds that it will be ineffectual.

    SO STOP FUCKING LYING YOU LYING CUNT CAMBRIA.

    If you cannot stop lying at least stop typing.

  289. The anti-bird Says:

    I’m sorry birdie, but now I think you’re the one who is lying. Lying though your fangs.

  290. graemebird Says:

    There is absolutely no doubt that John has been proven totally wrong. Thats why he had to turn to soothsaying and lying to keep his nonsense in the air. And ultimately thats why he did a runner.

  291. graemebird Says:

    No Cambria you lying cunt. John lied. Made an ignorant and illogical argument. And then you lied when you claimed he didn’t lie.

    You are a cunt. If I knew that you were this much of a traitor and lying cunt I would have just broken your nose up front.

  292. graemebird Says:

    “Second, you admit that all taxes hurt capital. You simply assert that one type of tax will have super-super-bad effects, but you give no reason …..”

    This is a straight lie from John. Me quoting him proves that he lied. And his subsequent argument showed specific ignorance of economics.

    I’ve explained why carbon tax is particularly damaging not just this month…. BUT ON MANY OCCASIONS. There are extensive explanations on the forum mangled thoughts. There are extensive explanations given over and over and over again at Catallaxy. At thread of doom length.

    So he ‘s just lying. And he was busted. And then that bootnigger cunt Cambria claims that he didn’t lie.

    But he did lie. And he’s busted.

  293. graemebird Says:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    Here is an extensive explanation here. And its nothing I’ve not gone over before. But its an understatement since there are also fundamental issues to do with the carbon resources we have to hand which are skewed towards the carbon end of the hydrocarbon spectrum.

  294. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    You are a cunt. If I knew that you were this much of a traitor and lying cunt I would have just broken your nose up front.

    I think you should apologise, JC. You’ve clearly upset Graeme.

  295. graemebird Says:

    France could probably at this stage entertain a carbon tax without too much ill effect. I’ll grant you that. Because its maybe the only place that can use non-carbon energy to create capital to create more non-carbon energy.

    Few of the rest of us are anywhere near to that position. Humphreys mentioned Norway as a distraction. Norway will be hurt by carbon tax but it has nuclear too I think and may not be totally stagnated or destroyed by a carbon tax. They might just get away with it. I doubt it but its possible.

  296. graemebird Says:

    Damn straight he should apologise. But its gone beyond that. Financial compensation is in order.

    Actually I’d forsake the money and refuse to take it if I could be sure that he would be intellectually honest from here on in. What has happened to this man? He was never like the rest of you dumb leftists?

    I think the Mars thing must have freaked him out.

  297. The anti-bird Says:

    bridie

    Stop it with the threats of violence and the abuse as it’s very off putting. JH has won the debate and I must admit it wasn’t that hard.

    Just apologize and be done with it.

    Man-up Birdie and do the right thing.

  298. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Humphreys mentioned Norway as a distraction

    Graeme, show me one example of Norway ever being mentioned as anything other than a distraction. It’s a tautology – a redundant tautology.

  299. Fyodor Says:

    I think you should apologise, JC. You’ve clearly upset Graeme.

    Yes, JC. You just know he’ll be crying into his over-sized biting-pillow tonight because of the hurtful things you said.

  300. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Yes, it will be tears in the amyl nitrate for Graeme.

  301. J Edgar Hoover Says:

    Gra gra baby
    can you bring back my yellow frock please? I need it for the parade.

  302. Graeme Bird Says:

    Sorry, Eddy poos. I am wearing it right now.

    I’ll give it back after I finish getting buttfucked.

  303. graemebird Says:

    Stop fucking lying Cambria or I’ll kick you so relentlessly you’ll need a gynacologist.

    I won the debate since I proved him totally wrong. If you think by proving people totally wrong you lose debates well you have it your way.

    Now the fact is in 2009 carbon tax will be a full frontal assault on wealth. As explained here but there is still more to it than that:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    Humphreys lost the debate so comprehensively that he took to lying and claiming that I had asserted that carbon tax would do this damage without explaining why. In fact I’ve explained why constantly to Humphreys, and to other people relentlessly.

    I explained it here as well. So Humphreys was caught lying, has no comeback, and has lost the debate.

  304. graemebird Says:

    Admit that I won the debate Cambria and stop lying.

    I proved Humphreys wrong. Thats winning the debate as far as I’m concerned. I proved that he had no valid comeback at all. His faux-comeback being a lie and specific ignorance in the field of economic theory.

    So stop lying and admit that I’m right about carbon tax and that Humphreys is wrong.

  305. The anti-bird Says:

    Stop fucking lying Cambria or I’ll kick you so relentlessly you’ll need a gynacologist.

    Birdie, stop it with the violence talk. It’s so inappropriate on Z’s blog. You know how badly I respond to violence talk. Compose yourself, you fat, bald angry little blowhard.

    I won the debate since I proved him totally wrong. If you think by proving people totally wrong you lose debates well you have it your way.

    Birdie, you lost the debate because John has a superior argument. You lost because your argument is frankly inferior and loaded with abuse.

    Humphreys lost the debate so comprehensively that he took to lying and claiming that I had asserted that carbon tax would do this damage without explaining why.

    No Birdie, you lost the debate and John clearly won.

    I explained it here as well. So Humphreys was caught lying, has no comeback, and has lost the debate.

    No Birdie, you didn’t explain anything remotely close. You clearly lost the debate.

    Admit that I won the debate Cambria and stop lying.

    How can I, when you lost. Surely you’re suggesting I lie, are you?

    I proved Humphreys wrong.

    No Birdie, you didn’t. You lost the debate.

    Thats winning the debate as far as I’m concerned.

    Does losing sound like winning backwards played backwards. But in normal “forward” speak you lost the debate.

    (Hey Z, remember Birdie’s thread on reverse speech? Can you try and find it as some of us were deleted from that one as well).

    I proved that he had no valid comeback at all.

    No Birdie, you didn’t. You clearly lost.

    His faux-comeback being a lie and specific ignorance in the field of economic theory.

    No he didn’t lie and he’s clearly one of the better young economists around speaking up in favor of the free market. You should listen to him and learn.

    So stop lying and admit that I’m right about carbon tax and that Humphreys is wrong.

    Once again, No Birdie you didn’t win. He did. You lost.

    Stop being a loser and apologize to john.

  306. Lyam Says:

    Birdy birdy,

    Since you deleted my comment on your site (again sigh), I’ll post it here.

    Your latest written rant
    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/
    only demonstrates you have a very very short attention span.

    Also, if you want to convince anyone of anything someday, learn how to write! Most 10 year olds write better than that.

  307. graemebird Says:

    Keep lying and I’ll smash you in the fucking face you lying cunt.

    I WON THE DEBATE BECAUSE I PROVED HIM WRONG.

    So effectively did I prove him wrong he had to stoop to lying and making ludicrous arguments equating electricity demand to CO2 output.

    He didn’t even make a proper argument. I explained why CO2 tax would be particularly harmful. He had no comeback for that.

    STOP LYING YOU CUNT. Persistent liars like you deserve to die from slow wasting diseases.

    Its not just this that you lie about Cambria you stupid cunt. You’ve lied about everything on this forum and prior.

    If he won the argument then you could show in your own words why CO2 tax isn’t particularly harmful, even though I have explained clearly why it is.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    He had no valid comeback for this explanation so he lost the debate. And you are clearly lying since you too are unable to make a counter-argument to my very clear explanations.

  308. graemebird Says:

    If I see you I’ll bash you Cambria. This constant lying is just jot acceptable.

    I explained clearly why carbon tax was particularly harmful.

    No-one here has a comeback for that. Proving that I won the debate. Since you weren’t lying, and John had an authentic comeback, then you would show how my explanation was wrong.

    But you are lying. And you ought to stop. Because if I could get hold of you I’d break your glasses put you on the ground and physically pummel your face into the concrete.

    Stop lying or make a case you stupid cunt.

  309. graemebird Says:

    So here is an explanation dealing with some of the reasons that carbon tax is particularly harmful:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    So what was your comeback Cambria. What was YOUR explanation? You had no comeback. You are just a liar.

  310. graemebird Says:

    “No he didn’t lie and he’s clearly one of the better young economists around speaking up in favor of the free market. ”

    He’s not speaking up for the free market. He’s speaking up for destroying the market with a carbon gtax.

    Look they are all useless. There is no use comparing him to other idiots. He doesn’t understand economics or he wouldn’t have fucked up with that elasticity idiocy and he wouldn’t be pushing this harmful carbon tax.

    Or at least I HOPE he wouldn’t be pushing it.

  311. graemebird Says:

    So I have proven that the carbon tax is particularly harmful. More even then taxes on retained earnings which itself is so harmful that it is unacceptable.

    But carbon tax cannot even be used for tax substitution. Since over time it will do more and more damage as it is raising less and less tax. It will work. It will lead to less CO2 through the powerful misdirection of investment resources and through the destruction of wealth.,

    Its thieves we are dealing with so there was never going to be a substitution. But carbon tax would lead to outright damage and with less and less revenue all the time.

  312. Mark Hill Says:

    “Stop fucking lying Cambria or I’ll kick you so relentlessly you’ll need a gynacologist. ”

    How very Derek and Clive of you mate.

    Tomorrow I will teach you the rational arguments against a carbon tax. Perhaps if you understand them and that John’s argument can be used as a valid reason to uphold Government action, you could usefully argue against mitigation.

  313. Lyam Says:

    You don’t explain anything in this post

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/carbon-tax-is-a-full-frontal-attack-on-wealth-in-2009/

    either.

    You just repeatedly state your beliefs with no argument except that you are right and anybody who disagrees is a fool (and that is a polite version of your trash vocabulary).

    You even manage to give the most complicated definition of economics I have ever read.

    Any idiot can complicate simple things, it’s simplifying complicated issues that is difficult.

  314. The anti-bird Says:

    Sorry birdie, but you’re lying again. John won the debate. You crashed quicker than a Russian plane.

  315. The anti-bird Says:

    Damn

    Mark, lyam:

    You guys ruined it. I was going for the Olympic poll vault and you two just got in the way :-).

    I had him up to 5.

  316. Jason Soon Says:

    Graeme
    John whipped your arse black and blue. Just admit that you lost and move on.

  317. Jason Soon Says:

    Just man up and acknowledge your superior, Graeme.

  318. Jason Soon Says:

    Because if I could get hold of you I’d break your glasses put you on the ground and physically pummel your face into the concrete.

    I don’t think you’ll be doing much pumelling, doughboy. You look like you’d have enough problems going through a revolving door.

  319. Lyam Says:

    anti-bird,

    Don’t worry, we all know that Birdy’s excitability is a good representation of what infinity is 🙂

  320. graemebird Says:

    I’ve won the argument since I showed why carbon tax was particularly harmful. Humphreys lied and claimed that I’d asserted this. He then made a spurious ignorant argument about elasticity and did a runner.

    So its clear I won and that Cambria is lying.

  321. graemebird Says:

    The extra puffiness in that photo would actually assist me to drag Cambria down to the ground whereupon I would pummel the compulsive liar mercilessly.

    Now Cambria stop lying and admit I won the debate and admit also that John was so badly beaten he basically had to lie and run away.

  322. graemebird Says:

    So powerful was my explanation John was forced into lying and pretending that it had never even been made.

    What is economics? It is not the study of choices under scarcity as is wrongly contended. Resources are not necessarily scarce and economics, properly considered, is out to make these resources less scarce.

    Economics is the study of wealth creation. Some extension of the definition is necessary to differentiate economics from engineering, manufacturing, construction, mining and so forth since people in those areas are entitled to think that they create wealth.

    Reismans definition is that economics is the study of wealth creation in the context of the division of labour. Now the second part of it is not that important except to let folks know just what we are talking about. That we are talking about money and policy and markets and the price system. Not about test drilling, gravity flyovers, prospecting, surveying… not about any one area of business operation.

    So we will stick with the idea of economics being the study of wealth creation. Pretty quickly we find where our own economists are deficient in this regard. Since nine-tenths of wealth creation is really about studying how it is that profit-seeking business accumulates capital. The focus takes us right away from retailing and consumer preferences. We dive head-long into the capital markets. We want to see how companies can be let loose to accumulate capital goods and improve their business operations …….. but all as a tangential effort to seeking for themselves a profit.

    The focus on wealth creation, rather than static-equilibrium choices to do with immediate scarce goods allocation, leads to an entirely different mindset. And is one of the reasons our economists are gunning for our destruction right now. Because they are not focused on how our companies will react to this carbon tax and what will it do to their tendency to tangentially accumulate capital whilst being motivated primarily by profit.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This is not a treatise on economics so we have moved the plot along quickly to focus on tangential capital accumulation as a result of the motivation to make a profit.

    CAPITAL AND ENERGY. ALMOST AKIN TO TWO SIDES OF THE ONE COIN.

    In our efforts to explain just how damaging a carbon tax will be in 2009 we must talk about the relationship between capital and energy. Capital is needed to gather energy. Energy is needed to produce capital. Energy is needed to run capital. Here we have the essence of the potential for rapid capital accumulation. It becomes pretty clear that cheap energy makes capital accumulation more readily achievable. And that a capital intensive economy, one in which wealth creation has been more than normally successful, must be a highly energy-intensive economy.

    In their fawning attempts to please their stolen-money splurging masters our economists have quite forgotten what their act is all about. They talk about the allocation of scarce resources…. but to what effect? A carbon tax has them doing what they believe to be their prescribed task, having gotten hold of the wrong definition. A carbon tax has them affecting massively the allocation of resources but in a full frontal attack on wealth via capital accumulation.

    Since we need energy to accumulate capital and capital to gather energy the possibility exists for a capital-energy vortex leading to a collapse. Or failing that, if obstruction to energy production and consumption comes at the wrong time it could lead to decades of painful stagnation.

    A carbon tax would not necessarily have done all that much harm in 1960 if we had very good property rights with regards to nuclear power. There was probably an immense amount of low-hanging fruit around in terms of simple things that we could do to be more fuel-efficient. That we will not wish to exploit such low-hanging fruit in the next time period is ridiculous. Since energy prices will be high. But we may not have the capital to be able to invest in energy-efficiency.

    Taxes on interest earnings, on retained earnings, and the inflation tax are much more directly an attack on capital accumulation than what a consumers excise or a personal income tax is. We will focus on taxes on retained business profits. This is a direct tax on capital accumulation and ought never be allowed. But even this is not as bad as the carbon tax in 2009. Not that we get the choice to substitute one to the other. We have to get rid of both.

    A carbon tax is much worse then a tax on retained earnings when viewed in the context of capital accumulation. Supposing I’m going to start up a coal-fired electricity plant. It might take me two years to commission this plant and five years to turn a profit. So while I’m not making a profit at least I don’t pay income tax. But with a carbon tax I must pay from minute one and keep paying. Now the company income tax on retained earnings will not make me invest in irrational ways. Whereas the carbon tax promotes irrationality in energy production and therefore vandalises the investment resources available by sending them into less productive uses then what they would have been employed in without the carbon tax.

    Back to my coal-fired plant. So my wealth creation ability is under attack right from minute one. Supposing I still choose rationally and don’t have a gas-fired plant instead. Well even then, and even when I get to a profit, the level of reinvestment will be reduced thanks to a carbon tax. And after many years the income tax will finally be as harmful as the carbon tax in this example.

    But the same goes and moreso if we are trying to set up nuclear plants. This is because nuclear plants take longer to commission. So there is your carbon tax beating you senseless years prior to you having to pay income tax.

    Hence it is a lie that a carbon tax can be used to advantage nuclear. It will merely kill both nuclear and coal and everything else as well. Since in 2009 carbon tax is a tax on capital accumulation itself.

    A carbon tax will be akin to carpet bombing in the sort of wealth destruction it will produce and obviously so. This conclusion comes directly from the relationship between capital and energy. But its worse than so far described because we are in an energy crisis, only somewhat masked by the financial meltdown. The carbon-tax is a direct attack on the selfsame minority of companies that we will be relying on to help us through the endless murk and onto the distant brightness. Because like it or not we must deal with this crisis primarily with our carbon-based resources.

    A company which has great growth prospects ought to issue new shares so long as the share price is higher than what the shares are actually worth. Currently Cougar Energy, Carbon Australia, Linc Energy and others shares of this sort are vastly underpriced. Hence by the mechanism of smashing the share price of these guys with the threat of a carbon tax, we are undermining the ability of these people to raise funds and accumulate capital and provide us with the synthetic liquid fuels we need when the oil price next takes off. Which it will do and the stupidity of (decadal) peak oil denialists cannot prevent it.

    In every way that you can think of, carbon tax is even worse than a tax on retained earnings. And taxes on retained earnings are themselves so bad as to amount to a mortal sin. But though carbon tax is far worse this doesn’t mean we can advocate taxes on retained earnings as a way of avoiding the carbon tax. Nor will the monstrous and monstrously idiotic promotion work when run the other way. A carbon tax will not lead to a reduction in the taxes on retained earnings. It will rather lead to total economic stagnation and no relief of any sort in sight.

  323. Lyam Says:

    You didn’t show anything Birdy. Endlessly repeating “it’s clear I won and so-and-so is lying” isn’t an argument, it’s a psychotic rant.

  324. graemebird Says:

    No no you are lying. I refuted Humphreys absolutely. And he was faced with having to lie and pretend that I’d merely asserted, rather than explained, why carbon tax was particularly harmful. He then showed utter economic incompetence with his story about electricity demand elasticity.

    So here is Humphreys trying to argue, unsuccessfully, that the carbon tax will not do much harm since he now says it will be ineffectual. His argument that it would be ineffectual is idiotic and wrong. Its a static argument as usual. Humphreys makes static arguments that don’t include time and capital spending in their reckoning.

    But he makes the argument that a carbon tax will be ineffectual here. No doubt he will tell the alarmists that the carbon tax would be powerfully effective. Which of course it will be. Its powerful effectiveness will come from misdirecting investment funds and from destroying wealth and energy production.

    But Humphreys will have it that it will be powerfully effective at reducing CO2 AND!!!!!!! that it will be a marvellous revenue raiser allowing substitution away from other taxes.

    BUT IT CANNOT DO BOTH OF THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME.

    As the malinvestment and the wealth destruction continues, the effectiveness of this tax as a revenue raiser must reduce. Hence as time goes on we get more and more economic damage proportionally and in comparison with less and less government revenue. Until such time as the level of damage as a numerator over the amount of revenue as a denominator leads to an awesomely high figure of economic wreckage as compared to revenue raising.

    So we see that John fucked up incredibly in his analysis. Since he only thinks static-equilibrium and final goods output.

    He never thinks of TIME and the flow of CAPITAL GOODS SPENDING.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I really must labour this point. Carbon tax will be a massive wealth destroyer immediately. But you can expect it to raise some revenue at first this is true. As the destruction of wealth and the malinvestment continues the carbon-taxes effectiveness as a revenue raiser reduces.

    Here are other bits and pieces I’ve written on this one point and it will be repetitive but its most important that people absorb the reality of this. John makes foolish assumptions every step of the way. But even assuming that carbon tax revenue will lead to income tax reductions (which it won’t) his argument is STILL totally flawed:

    Carbon tax starts off even worse than a tax on retained earning right from day one FOR REASONS EXPLAINED CAREFULLY (YOU PATHETIC LIAR) but it just gets worse dollar for dollar. Since as the carbon tax does more cumulative harm it raises less and less revenue.

    You have placed yourself in the same ignorant camp as Nick Gruen falling for his own computer model on the alleged benefits of tariffs.

    If we put a tariff specifically on Chinese consumer goods only, and substituted that tax by cutting a tax on retained earnings at first we would have a net gain (from a likely capital accumulation response point of view) so long as the Chinese didn’t retaliate. I would never make naieve assumptions like this but you seem to love naieve assumptions.

    Since the one tax is less bad at first then the other, for wealth creation purposes, we would likely have a gain in growth. But here is the thing. The longer the tariff was left on (elasticities must relate to a time period DUMMY. In the long run all virtually all demand curves are elastic) the less revenue it would raise and the more investment distortion it would create. Hence in the long run we would get all the damage without the tax substitution (bear in mind there is no such thing as this tax substitution).

    So what might seem like a good idea at first is a disaster and the fact is there is no getting away from the need for spending cuts. Spending cuts are what we need to use for revenue problems and not really bad new taxes.

    So in the same way this carbon tax cannot be seen as a direct substitution tax raiser. In the final analysis you will have all of the damage and very little of the revenue. Massive amounts of punitive damage and no revenue raising. In fact a destruction in the revenue generation from other taxes because of general wealth destruction and malinvestment.

    This is not a bare assertion. The reasons are explained carefully. DON’T LIE ABOUT THAT SORT OF THING AGAIN HUMPHREYS YOU ECONOMICS KNOW-NOTHING.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    We go through this cycle where Humphreys argues for his carbon-tax, is proved wrong, and then when he’s proved wrong he tells lies and does a runner. Then once again, after a brief pause he starts promoting the carbon tax again. This has gone on for two years now and if anyone reads what happened this time and can show he understands the argument I can track down another thread where the exact same cycle was repeated.

    He also went through this cycle with Gerry Jackson. To cheering crowds of ignorant economists he argued against Gerry Jackson, got whipped, while our know-nothing economists ludicrously had him down for the win.

    I explain everything absolutely clearly and if you think that Humphreys wins the argument you need to simply re-read and re-read until you get it.

  325. Lyam Says:

    Copy/pasting bits and pieces of your previous posts won’t convince anyone any more than they did initially.

    Your “argumentation” gets more unstructured with every post. Youi’r going nowhere Birdy

  326. graemebird Says:

    Stop talking shit Lyam. If you cannot comprehend the explanation either read it again or just accept your congenital stupidity and go away.

  327. Lyam Says:

    I have no problem saying I am a layman in economics, but I know enough about it to see you don’t either.

    In fact you know so little, you don’t even know the extent of your illiteracy.

    I will read Mark Hill’s argument against carbon tax as soon as he posts it, but your prose isn’t worth the head ache.

  328. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    You’re doing a great job, Lyam.

    You’ve clearly got Bird on the ropes with your superior logic. I predict he concedes defeat any moment now.

  329. graemebird Says:

    I’ve got examples from a whole year ago. Where Humphreys just lies like he did then and asserts that I haven’t made the argument but merely asserted that carbon tax will be harmful.

    Its really a disgrace what a liar Humphreys is:

    John Humphreys wrote:

    Graeme — you have made no analysis. You have simply ranted. I’m not even sure your comments have been in english. I’ve fully addressed every single comment from Gerry. His arguments have been dismantled. Don’t blame me if you don’t understand.

    Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    Graeme Bird wrote:

    Well there’s a lie right there. I’ve been talking about energy-economics and the impending energy crisis for two years now. During that time the oil price has gone from about 40USD to 110 USD.

    I’ve been involved with threads of doom on these matters. I’ve written essays on my own blogs.

    Now Humphreys. I’m not interested in you dodging the argument. Your shiftiness is very clear here. Unlike at “Thoughts On Freedom” you have not been able to wipe my posts.

    Now here’s just a brief few points to get your teeth into:

    1. Industrial-CO2 is a positive externality. There’s no getting around that.

    2. A carbon-tax will fall more fully on productive expenditure than just about any other tax as Gerry points out.

    3. A carbon-tax may lead to malinvestment. So its a massive exercise in deliberately “picking losers”.

    4. A carbon-tax will lead to a reduction in reinvestment in energy production.

    5. It is in fact a tax on energy production IN THE MIDDLE OF AN IMPENDING ENERGY CRISIS. A crisis not caused by inherent lack of fuel, but by enforced deprivation of energy-producing capital.

    6. Our hydro-carbon energy resources are fundamentally carbon-rich and hydrogen-poor. So our next move is away from using gasoline and natural gas and towards using more coal and heavy fuels. So the carbon-tax sits directly on top of our adaptation efforts. Its about the worst tax imagineable at this time in our energy history.

    Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:31 am | Permalink

  330. graemebird Says:

    You see Humphreys was lying that I hadn’t made an argument then….. And he’s still using the exact same lie now.

  331. Lyam Says:

    Vintage Birdy!

    Another copy/paste, 2/3 of which are just naming names and the rest refers to another conversation.

    Result: adiabatic noise.

  332. graemebird Says:

    Here is me trying to get Humphreys to engage the argument a year ago. He either shirks the argument. Or if pretends to engage the argument but ignores the points made. When he’s beaten he does a runner, waits for awhile, and comes out in a blaze of publicity in favour of the carbon tax.

    “Graeme Bird wrote:

    Engage the argument Humphreys you idiot.

    “No… not enough words…”

    Do you understand that this is not an argument you pathetic goon Humphreys.

    DO…YOU….UNDERSTAND…. THAT you shifty pathetic idiot.

    He’s telling you exactly what I told you two years ago and all the time in between. And you have simply dodged the issue all this time.

    Posted on 08-Mar-08 at 12:39 am | Permalink”

    We were desperately trying to get Humphreys to actually engage the argument back then and also before that. Its an endless cycle. When he debated Gerry he never even acknowledged Gerry’s argument to do with the tax falling on capital. Its like he found a bit of a rhetorical flourish around that this time. But at the time he merely refused to take on Gerry’s point.

  333. graemebird Says:

    Here’s a line of reasoning made to Humphreys a year ago which he has never addressed. He’s promptly ignored it. I think the only way to cure economists of their stupidity would be to send them on field trips. Like when they sent kids out to our farm so they could learn that milk didn’t just come from a bottle.

    So here is me explaining the realities of energy economics to Humphreys a year ago and nothing I said was addressed or taken on board:

    “Graeme Bird wrote:

    Every implied premise behind the policy mix is wrong and or nihilistic. The worst being the very low bar it set itself. But I’ll get to that later.

    Consider every single implied premise behind the proposal. It is implied that you need to get a new tax in order to get rid of the income tax. Thats putting forward the idea that the bureaucracies are sacrosanct. Which is a disgusting and anti-libertarian idea.

    You mean to say that with all the thieving going on you think you can justify policy on the basis of theft-level-neutrality?

    The idea of justifying policy on the basis of theft-level neutrality is wrong, stupid and bad. New policy must be theft-level-negative.

    But you go even further!!! You actually affect to claim theft-level-stability as a JUSTIFICATION.

    Easy to see who worked in blood-sucker-central. Thats an unbelievably pro-thieving treasury dogma. Now I’ve brought this up before so you had absolutely no excuse to overlook this point.

    New taxes ought always be introduced, if at all, on the basis of heavily-negative theft-level reform.

    Now its a bad thing to be pushing revenue-neutrality since it implies that bureaucracies cannot be closed down. We could close down 100 tommorrow, give the former thieves tax exemptions in lieu of redundancy pay, and we could have double-digit GDR growth going virtually immediately.

    Thats a GOOD thing. So to be advocating something which implies, however subtly, that it cannot be done. THATS A BAD THING.

    Rather we ought to be pushing that hundreds of these government bureaucracies ought to be closed.

    So there is an attempt here to sidestep the need to advocate the closing of government bureaucracies.

    Next bit of policy-making idiocy:

    The policy isn’t even put forward to be the best policy available. It doesn’t even attempt to be. Actually its a totally perverse policy. But there was not even an attempt to go for what the advocate thought was the best of all policies.

    So the starting premise was that better policy doesn’t matter. THIS IS A HATEFUL AND NIHILISTIC PREMISE. And clearly this premise is indeed implied since you use the idea that its better than the status quo (it isn’t) as a justification. Not that its the best policy you yourself can think of. But only that its a bit better than the status quo (which it isn’t).

    So you began to make policy on the basis of a nihilistic premise right from the getgo.

    Policy must not just beat the status quo. It must be the best policy you can advocate. The policy mix was thus based on a nihilistic idea right from the start. And that nihilistic premise fundamentally is that BETTER POLICY IS IRRELEVANT.

    THE POLICY RUNS COUNTER TO THE BASIC FACTS OF THE ENERGY RESOURCES WE HAVE AVAILABLE.

    The policy ran counter to the reality of our energy resources. Practically every new car on the road in 10 years time will be diesel. And more likely in 5 years time.

    Your policies were pushing against that basic adaptation that will have to be made. Totally perverse and anti-economic and I went over that during the election when you sprung it on us that time.

    The other thing that is implied by the proposed policy mix is that CO2 is bad for the environment. A negative externality. This is a lie. But on the other hand traffic congestion IS a negative externality. So why didn’t you advocate peak-time charging along with a cut in all fuel excises or at the very least diesel?

    You see a carbon tax is a Pigouvian tax. But Pigouvian taxes must be placed, unless we are insane lunatics or environmentalists (the same thing as it happens) we would want the tax to fall on negative and not positive externalities.

    Surely!!!!!!

    But oh no. Your next insane suggestion is that Pigouvian taxes can be placed on postive externalities. That is another evil-stupid implied premise that you are pushing here.

    Industrial-CO2 is a positive externality but road congestion might be looked upon as an externality. And if you looked at it that way you would say it was definitely a negative externality. So why wasn’t the proposal for a cut in income tax, a cut in fuel taxes, but an increase in peak-time road charges? If one wanted a Pigouvian tax why not go for one that made sense?

    If one bought the “revenue-neutral” argument, as terrible a premise as that is, but if you bought into it why not let the tax fall on a glaring negative externality and not a known positive externality? Thats a Mankiw bait and switch if I ever saw one.

    So it fails on the Pigouvian level as well. We see that the policy mix fails on every conceivable level.

    Actually its even more nihilistic then I said before. Instead of advocating the best policy, it did not merely only justify itself as being slightly better than the status quo. The bar was dropped lower still. The bar was dropped below the status quo that all it had to be was slightly better than a disastrous proposed policy.

    So it was a failure on every imagineable level.

    And its a disgrace that you didn’t get this right the first time I brought these things up.

    Posted on 08-Mar-08 at 12:26 am | Permalink”

  334. Lyam Says:

    The topic is: “making a coherent argument against carbon tax*, not a survey of your relationships with John Humphreys,

    What this post tells me is that you have been ranting all over the internet on this topic for a whole year, and are still not able to post something with a beginning, a middle and an end.

    Not to mention also, and again, the name calling.

  335. graemebird Says:

    I had been trying to deal with this asshole well before that. So now another year passes and its another year where Humphreys will not engage the points made. Where he lies to third parties, simply claims that I’ve asserted the damage of CO2-tax without explaining it and runs away.

    Note the references in the above post to attempts to get Humphreys to engage the argument. Then the dumb bastard has the nerve to right in the Australian that its other people who won’t engage the argument.

    He’s a liar.

  336. Lyam Says:

    I repeat, the topic is: “making a coherent argument against carbon tax*, not a survey of your relationships with John Humphreys.

    Calling John Humphreys names is not an argument against carbon tax.

  337. graemebird Says:

    Here is more proof that Humphreys knew he was lying when he claimed that I had asserted but had not explained why it is that a carbon-tax was disproportionately damaging. This is a post he wiped outright from Thoughts On Freedom. I wouldn’t have minded him doing so if he had subsequently forced himself to understand the points made, did a bit of study on the matter, and so forth….. But the fact is he simply ignores what he doesn’t want to believe.

    “Lets talk about South Africa for awhile. Energy-rich country. Ran its transport systems on liquified-coal which was synthesised by a company called Sassol. This gave them energy independence and they would have been able to fight under conditions of embargo since liquified coal can go straight into diesel engines. I speak of Apartheid South Africa that would have been almost impossible to defeat had they wanted to defend their position.

    Whats happened in the last few years is reminiscient of the dying days of Atlas Shrugged. The South Africans have been having forced promotions of black people and a lot of the dudded skilled people have left. So the power engine is running down. Instead of throwing their hopes behind John Galts engine they are now hoping to get hold of French nuclear energy. There are blackouts the whole time. Every time there is a blackout this must cost millions in lost production.

    Once you get to such a dire situation there is no innovating your way out of it. There is no substitution towards different non-carbon technologies to get out of that sort of mess because energy and capital are one. Capital takes energy to build and energy to run and cheap enough energy to make the lengthening of the structure of production worthwhile.

    A progressing (growing) economy grows by the lengthening of the structure of production. The Gross Domestic revenue must grow a great deal faster then the Gross Domestic Product. This means that growth implies DISSPROPORTIONATELY increased per capita energy consumption. With any energy efficiencies an afterthought.

    Fortunately we have abundant energy. We just need the capital to gather it. Capital needs energy. Energy needs capital. Hence no talk of the vanity of solar, wind and other nutball bean-sprout-munching energy methods ought to be condoned as a way of dealing with a looming crises.

    These vanities are to be invested in only when we are back under conditions of cheap energy. Which we won’t be for some decades thanks to the environmentalist movement.

    Now supposing that the South Africans, who appear doomed by the way, suppose they didn’t get this French nuclear power to bail them out. And instead they engaged in endless chatter about seaweed-biodiesel and carbon taxes? Supposing whenever an investor thought of sticking up another coal-electricity generator alarm bells went off in his head at the contemplation of the harrassment, legal costs, and political hurdles he would encounter. And supposing the South Africans starting madly subsidising solar power, wind farms and solar towers?

    Each of these measures would hasten their econonmic collapse. If their total economic collapse was fated for 5 years time, which is realistic from where I sit, instead that collapse would come in two years lets say.

    Because Humphreys feels he is allowed to and within his best behaviour to merely DODGE rather than BEST arguments against his arguments …………. he has therefore not seen fit to educate himself in the understanding of the capital structure or of energy economics.

    THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE

    The amount of money spent between and within businesses vastly dwarfs GDP. And the whole thing runs on energy. I won’t address the issue of Keynesians here because they are lunatics who don’t understand economics at all. But neo-classicals have put GROSS INVESTMENT into the too-hard-basket. They think of capital as one big undifferentiated blob. They have to work hard in their mind to untangle physical capital spending with whatever it is a Hedge Fund is doing. Its a big confusion to them and they prefer to brush up on otherworldly theories of the firm and assure people of their credentials.

    GDP=C+I+X-M

    Now notice something strange and entirely bogus about GDP.

    We have these gross figures lumped together. But I is NET investment. Which is something of an accounting fiction since it contains highly processed notions of retained profits and depreciation.

    What if we were dealing with GROSS INVESTMENT?

    As it turns out Gross investment is the whole deal in econonmics. The figure of Gross investment vastly dwarfes the other figures. It is internal spending within and between business. Its a massive figure. Its where all the important economic action is. Its where the vast bulk of the energy is consumed AND NEOCLASSICAL ECONOMISTS ARE TRAINED TO VIGOUROUSLY BLOCK IT OUT OF THEIR MINDS.

    So they cannot see the economy as such. They cannot think about it properly. They do not register the importance of so many things. And so the notion that you could run 1000 households with some solar tower sounds like relevant information to them because they vaguely see the shops and the ships and they see the households in their minds eye….. but they are trained not to see most of the economy most of the time.

    So thouroughly are they trained not to see the bulk of the economy, that they come up with all sorts of daft notions like the “service economy” and the “information economy” and they imagine we can all be landscape gardeners, fast-food franchise operators and hedge-fund managers.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    THE FRAGILITY OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION. EXCESS CAPACITY IS CRUCIAL.

    Now you have a turbine running. Its turning through a magnetic field which is creating a resistance. You have all these transformers all over town.

    That giant turbine cannot be let slow down because it will take hours to fire it up again. So if its slowing the resistance must be eased. The strength of the field must be reduced. Hence electricity generation must be reduced if the giant turbine is losing momentum.

    The transformers are all over town. They might be dealing with 132000 volts or something. ACDC. And they cannot allowed tot drop below about 49.95 Hertz or they will do just enourmous damage, screwing up everyones electrical equipment.

    So if demand for energy exceeds what the system can handle one of the transformers must be shut down causing millions of dollars in lost production.

    So supposing we open up a lot more land for housing development or we have some sort of investment boom, double digit GDR growth and all that. The energy production must always be the first tent in the peg. We must have an investment environment that leaves us with massive overcapacity at all times.

    If the new suburbs and economic growth goes ahead without this overcapacity we can bugger ourselves up.

    I have anecdotal evidence that our system doesn’t have much excess capacity. In wartime a single bombed coal-electricity plant could screw us up bad. Could make it near impossible to conduct sane econonmic activity while our boys got on with the butchering.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    A MANY AND VARIED CAMPAIGN.

    The environmentalist movement has been pushing us into a situation of energy stress for three or four decades now. They have made everyone frightened of nuclear and coal. This energy-deprivation-crusade predates the global warming lying campaign by two decades at least.

    We cannot be reinforcing their lies. It doesn’t take a total ban on nuclear, coal-to-electricity or coal-to-liquified-coal to set us up for disaster. Money is a coward.

    MONEY IS A COWARD. Investors are easily discouraged. And for no reason at all Humphreys wants to discourage them more.

    There is no alternative to coal and nuclear that can be put up in an age of energy stress. Post-war up until the 1970’s was a cheap energy age. It didn’t need to stop but we had to move to coal and nuclear. And the environmentalist movement wouldn’t let us.

    Before 1973 when we left a room we’d leave the light on. Wouldn’t even bother to switch it off. Those were the good days when even mind-blowingly stupid Keynesian practices couldn’t stop economic growth. We can only get those days back with massive expansion of coal and nuclear use.

    So we have to start talking differently, we have start taxing differently, and we cannot have policy which reinforces lies.

    The plan of the energy-deprivation crusade is and always has been global energy rationing as spelled out this very day on Late Night Live. To promote carbon tax literally is not to promote carbon tax actually. To promote carbon tax is to promote a global scheme of per capita CO2-rationing. Which means energy-rationing, global governance, massive payments to socialist countries and on and on.

    Why on earth does Humphreys imagine that if he promotes his policy he also gets to nuance it?????

    This is a childish delusional fantasy that Humphreys and Soon entertain. You cannot both push and nuance policy. This was the one devastating anti-war point that Humphreys made against me on another subject. You push an idea you don’t get to nuance it.

    But the Humphreys policy itself is typical neoclassical economic illiteracy. Since it fails to see the economy entire and its just one more nail in the coffin for energy investment.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    (Tapping the hitman on the hand like the nazi in marathon man.)

    The environmental movement did not kill tens of millions of black children through a total DDT-Ban. They killed them by a variety of methods including just simple discouragement.

    DDT-discouragement. DDT-bureaucratisation. And a closed factory there. A price increase here. A ban here and there. And that was enough to get the job done. Millions of wailing Mothers screaming all night long. 300 million chronically sick people on top of the kiddie-killing.

    And so it goes for this current campaign. Its a tax there. A stupid misconception there. Somebody over here is convinced to be fearful of nuclear power. Some kids are taught to be bigoted about CO2. Its a Lamberting campaign. And there is some nutball out there that keeps wanting a carbon tax. He’s a nutball whose out there and he refuses to fucking LISTEN!!!!!!!

    This nutball that keeps wanting a carbon tax. We say why we cannot-must-not have one. And he just ignores our argument, waits another freaking month. And he springs it on us again.

    Now what is going on here?

    Now the other thing is this. All our readily profitable non-nuclear energy sources are hydrogen-poor and carbon-rich. So much so that they are solids. Hence the next move is towards heavy carbon fuels. And carbon tax will get in the way of that. Our vehicles will be dieselised. The gasoline is on the way out and diesel has to come in.

    THIS MUST HAPPEN. Because of the basic hydrogen-dearth. Its got to happen. But money is a coward. And another tax sitting directly on this transformation will hobble us horribly. Its a total disaster that Humphreys is talking about here.

    We will go to heavy fuels everywhere they can be applied. That means diesel and liquified-coal.

    And this must continue until such time as we have saturation nuclear power, which will provide the extra hydrogen atoms that will progressively lighten the fuels towards the methane end of the spectrum.

    Now all of you must understand everything I’ve said here. Just keep reading it, and reading it, and reading it until you understand it all the way down to your blood-and-bones …….marrow-and-mitochondria. You must understand the energy landscape viscerally to fight this ugly ugly environmentalists looming disaster. They have replaced a make-believe disaster in the space of the real one they are pushing us towards.

    This is a matter of the utmost seriousness.

    Posted in Global warming | No Comments »”

  338. Lyam Says:

    Again a mindless copy/paste (sigh), starting with

    “Here is more proof that Humphreys knew he was lying when he claimed that I had asserted but had not explained why it is that a carbon-tax was…”

    and again “Birdy vs Humphreys: a recap”.

    You really are tone death are you! You’re never going to convince anyone with foul language and name calling.

  339. graemebird Says:

    So this from a year ago…. And the endless evasiveness of Humphreys had already been running almost two years before that:

    “This nutball that keeps wanting a carbon tax. We say why we cannot-must-not have one. And he just ignores our argument, waits another freaking month. And he springs it on us again.

    Now what is going on here?”

    This was said almost exactly a year ago. And it could have been said a year prior to that.

    Now you have seen the full spectrum of my arguments above. Which argument is anyone contesting?

  340. graemebird Says:

    Liam. Engage the argument or FUCK OFF YOU CUNT.

    What have you got to say about the hydrogen-dearth argument? About the delayed profit argument? These are all explanations that show why this tax will be a disaster. Let the fucking French have this tax. They may be able to cope with it. We won’t. We will be horribly crippled by this outrage of economic-ignorance.

  341. Carlos Says:

    What have you got to say about the hydrogen-dearth argument? About the delayed profit argument? These are all explanations that show why this tax will be a disaster. Let the fucking French have this tax. They may be able to cope with it. We won’t. We will be horribly crippled by this outrage of economic-ignorance.

    Why do you hate the french, Gra Gra Oiseau?
    And why do you oppose the nationalisation of the Australian car industry?

  342. Lyam Says:

    You fail to show why a marginal increase in energy prices would completely disrupt the economy. Especially if other taxes, such as income tax and capital gain tax, are reduced.

  343. graemebird Says:

    I HAVE FUCKING SHOWED IT YOU FUCKING LYING CUNT. IT WOULD DESTROY CAPITAL ACCUMULATION.

    I’ve fucking shown it. I’ve proved it.

    Fucking read it again if you don’t understand you dumb cunt.

  344. Lyam Says:

    “Liam. Engage the argument or FUCK OFF YOU CUNT.”

    I already said I am not an economist and don’t have an argument. I would welcome a rational argument against the carbon tax, but calling me, or anyone else, names doesn’t do the job.

  345. graemebird Says:

    You don’t have an argument so you just fucking lie.

    Now there is no getting around the reality of hydrogen-dearth in our resources make-up.

    This basic reality of chemistry would be less severe if we had already developed our nuclear resources and also had a flourishing industry taking Methane-Clathrates off the ocean floor.

    So we have to adapt in the direction of heavier fuels. More carbon.

    But Humphreys policy prescriptions ALWAYS sat in direct opposition to this. He wanted to take the excise off gasoline. But he wouldn’t take it off diesel or scrap the idea of a carbon tax.

    So he’s wanting to tax in opposition to needed adaptation.

    His policies have been consistent lunacy from an evasive economics illiterate.

    I’ve never so much as heard him discuss the realities of energy production.

  346. graemebird Says:

    I’VE GIVEN YOU A RELENTLESS SERIES OF UNDENIABLE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE CARBON TAX LIAM YOU LYING CUNT. IF YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ASK QUESTIONS YOU FUCKING LYING CUNT.

    BUT DON’T FUCKING LIE YOU CUNT AND PRETEND I HAVEN’T EXPLAINED IT ALL VERY CAREFULLY.

    You are such a cunt I reckon you must be Humphreys sock puppet. Equally ignorant of economics.

  347. graemebird Says:

    So Liam….. or shall I say Humphreys…. What is your problem with understanding the concept of hydrogen dearth in our resources?

  348. The anti-bird Says:

    The extra puffiness in that photo would actually assist me to drag Cambria down to the ground whereupon I would pummel the compulsive liar mercilessly.

    Birdie, enough of the chest thumping you fat, bald oaf. John won and you lost. In fact you lost so badly I’m embarrassed for you. Embarrassed!

    Fess up, grow a set and apologize for wasting all our time with this incessant babbling.

  349. graemebird Says:

    It would be just like Humphreys to pull a gag like this. Because Humphreys is basically intellectually handicapped. He thinks that if he refuses to engage an argument the reality behind the argument will go away.

  350. graemebird Says:

    Shut up Cambria or I will kill you you lying cunt.

    Now does anyone have any counterargument to my lectures on energy economics. All very carefully explained above?

  351. The anti-bird Says:

    Birdie

    You can’t make threats like those and think it scares people. It doesn’t scare me.

    You lost. Get over it.

    JH is a first rate economist and you’re fat. He made the better argument and you didn’t. Live with the consequences, you oaf. And stop it with the threats.

  352. graemebird Says:

    Here is another essay on energy production realities and energy economics. So far no-one wishes to engage the arguments made.

    “The global warming hoax will be defeated in the realm of public opinion when we start getting years of freezing cold weather.

    And that won’t be too far away.

    But by then we face the prospect of these bastards wrecking the Wests ability to produce and consume ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy.

    And in fact SINCE doing this damage is THE REAL GOAL of the leftists, the public seeing this particular leftist delusion for what it is…. This public recognition won’t necessarily stop the left from continuing with its project to defeat our ability to produce and consume energy.

    Another decade would just likely mean more excuses for the same harmful policies.

    Just last week I received in the mail, two back issues of the brilliant Dr Arthur Robinsons “Access To Energy” newsletter. Later on I expect to get hold of years of these newsletter and my comments will reflect Dr Robinson’s newsletter to some extent. On the other hand what I say ought not be considered as the access-to-energy line.

    Technically we have available as much cheap energy as we want. And the only real cost factor is the capital component of each energy source.

    For most purposes our chief energy sources, with a great deal of the capital ready-to-hand…. (capital in relation to the amount of joules that capital can produce and create useful services in its consumption)….. are the 3 hydro-carbon groups and Nuclear.

    So we have:

    1. Natural Gas.

    2. Coal.

    3. Oil.

    4. Nuclear.

    The short story is that the three hydro-carbons are convertible one-to-eachother. And nuclear is the cheapest form of electricity.

    THE TAKE-HOME-STORY IS THAT THE THREE HYDRO-CARBON TYPES ARE CONVERTIBLE ONE-TO-THE-OTHERS AND NUCLEAR IS THE CHEAPEST FORM OF ELECTRICITY.

    Therefore it is wasteful to our resources to be using up our hydrocarbons on electricity. When coal can be liquified to “oil”

    Gas can be turned to oil and oil to gas as well as coal to gas. Gas and Oil can be probably turned into coal but I don’t see too much call for that.

    The existence of plentiful, cheap energy coming from nuclear power also means that in the conversion process, where possible and economic, we can use nuclear-electricity…………………..so as to not use up too much of the actual fossil fuels themselves………………IN-CONVERSION.

    Now we have plenty of fossil fuels don’t get me wrong. We have hundreds of years of supplies of coal to liquify. And CO2 is just no problem whatsoever. In fact the more the better.

    BUT ITS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.

    Why use up too much of the blessed hydro-carbons just for conversion?

    What are the advantages between gas and synthetic-oil?

    Well liquified-coal aka synthetic-oil is cheaper to transport in tankers. Because it contains so much imbedded energy per weight. Synthetic oil can be put straight into diesel engines RIGHT-NOW. No capital costs involved at all.

    Where I work we use natural gas indoors all the time for fork-lifts and things, because its so clean-burning.

    We have a piece of cleaning equipment called “THE GUERNEY”. A wonderful machine that saves on back-breaking labour, and it uses electricity, diesel, water and lots of detergent if you so choose….

    …((((fan-fucking-tastic. And everything the bad guys hate)))))))….

    ….THE GUERNEY makes cleaning fun. Its just magic. A thing of truth-and-beauty that takes the carpal tunnel syndrome out of cleaning and saves a helluva lot of time.

    But when we use THE GUERNEY inside we have to turn off all the fire alarms. And you can’t use diesel inside for larger equipment, like forklifts, since that would be a health hazard.

    Now liquefied coal is much cleaner then traditional diesel…….

    http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/environment.asp

    ……..So I don’t know if that overcomes the indoors advantage that gas has. If it does liquified coal will be the fuel of choice for most non-electrical applications.

    BUT HERE IS THE KEY POINT. WE CURRENTLY HAVE CAPITAL INVESTED IN MACHINES THAT USE BOTH GAS AND DIESEL. And this capital issue is nothing to be flippant about.

    We need all these fuels because we don’t have unlimited capital. In fact our SAVINGS are just pitiful. And its capital formation that is the key problem in energy production (and by the way, energy production is a key factor in capital accumulation).

    So people who say…. “Oh HO HO. We can just all buy electric cars and put solar panels and wind propellers everywhere”…. anyone who says this has no understanding of the problem whatsoever.

    The fact is that we don’t have that sort of ability to accumulate capital. And even if we did we would have to invest FOSSIL FUEL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY into the accumulation of this alternative capital.

    Capital accumulation IS THE ISSUE. And it can’t be taken for granted.

    Back to the relative advantage of these fuels…..

    Gas is a pretty damn cool fuel. Because its perfectly clean-burning, and its the only fuel you can burn….. that when you switch it off……. the heats gone immediately.

    Superb stuff really.

    For cars, if we had diesel engines we could use liquified coal to run them and actually improve our air quality.

    But the fact is people have already invested in petroleum-fueled cars. And that is nothing to sneeze at. The current capital stock…. IS THE ISSUE. This is something that Rich White Leftists cannot seem to get their heads around.

    But it must be remembered that we will still be getting a lot of oil out of the ground. And its entirely appropriate to keep refining it down to petrol for those particular cars, for this particular energy source.

    As well our ability to liquify coal would be growing over time and the people buying diesel engines for their cars or for machines at work would be also growing over time. So there is a natural growth-and-substitution good-fit going on here. A good-fit that is not to be seen in these wild-assed alternative fuel schemes.

    http://english.people.com.cn/english/200010/04/eng20001004_51838.html

    “Coal liquefaction is the chemical process of adding hydrogen to coal under high temperature and pressure to liquefy coal into crude oil.”

    Well where does the hydrogen come from? Hopefully it will be made via nuclear-produced electricity, to split the water molecules, and we won’t be using up our blessed hydrocarbons in the process.

    The prospect of having plentiful, clean, liquefied-coal also means the ability to have heaps of stand-alone generators everywhere. Stand-alone generators as back-up for the electrical grid. This has efficiency and economic implications. But even more important are the national-security and regional-emergency implications.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So what do we do to overturn the TYRRANY OF THE WATERMELON COMMIES?

    Well we need to face them with a fait accompli. We need to let them know, with one decisive move, that all of their obstruction, lying, legal action, and fear-mongering will be to no avail. And that we Australians are destined, no matter what evil these bastards do, to produce, export and consume massively more energy every year.

    Access-To-Energy suggests the energy sector being seperated and all taxes, charges and regulations be taken off this sector. And the tax-free-status being kept until the United States is a massive energy exporter.

    I agree with this diagnosis totally.

    Money is a coward. And investors are-of-course likely to be spooked, for good reason, by the momentum these evil watermelon-commie-filth have created.

    So the Australian LDP or free enterprisers within the two major parties, putting their efforts into some lame requests for deregulation….. well that just won’t get the job done and I think we all know that.

    This is a fucking war. We are like that American Indian tribe, the members of which, tied their leg to a stake so they had to fight or die. We are like them in that we simply have to win this thing.

    And the best way to win the war is to take action that lets all parties up front know who is going to win. So that the good guys (the investors) and the bad guys (global warming fraudsters, ecologists and leftists) know that its just a mopping up operation right from the start.

    Its got to be a SHORT-WAR because we have to get down to business.

    An Australian version of this scheme will stop the lying-momentum in its tracks.

    We DO tax royalties on extraction and I suggest that this must stay.

    This is a way of conferring property rights on the extractors and once they’ve agreed on the royalty its THEIR BACK YARD. Its their property. So its none of this NOT-IN-MY-BACK-YARD (Nimby) bullshit because its the energy-companies back yard and not yours.

    But after that there ought to be no taxes levied on the extraction/production/conversion and distribution of energy of any sort.

    There is a bit of corporate re-organisation to be done here but thats no big deal. Its because you need each company to be stand-alone in energy and not have its fingers in any other pies in order to qualify for tax-free status.

    AND THAT MEANS NO TAXES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THESE FIRMS EITHER. No income tax. No corporate tax. No State payroll tax. And no regulations to speak of. Even local charges ought not apply except those that are explicitly user-pays. And this will be a catalyst to force localities to move towards more of a user-pays way of doing things.

    Then we can say to the left:

    Give it up…. you’ve lost this one… go away and cause problems in some other areas. Its no use lying about global warming anymore because you aren’t going to destroy our ability to produce energy by your lies.
    >>>>>>>>>>

    But there is one more thing we need to do. This cannot be merely a movement of capital investment from other areas to energy production. We need to find MORE CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

    And we do this via taking the tax off interest earnings, amongst other measures, and particularly via monetary reform.

    Monetary reform to bring down the growth in aggregate spending near zero without it ever turning negative. And that obviously means getting rid of fractional reserve.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    WHAT OUGHT TO BE AUSTRALIAS METRIC TO ENDING THIS SPECIAL TAX STATUS FOR THE ENERGY INDUSTRY.

    This state of affairs ought to be sunsetted. In the meantime we try and get taxes and regulations down close to this level for the rest of the economy.

    But the special tax status could be slated-in-advance to end when Australia is producing and consuming more energy-per-capita, by a significant margin, then any other country in the world.

    You want to have that stipulation in the legislation RIGHT-UP-FRONT.

    It has to be known that the-very-idea is to produce-and-consume more-and-more-energy all the time. And we want to wind up of course with the most physical-capital per-capita. The most per-capita and the most up-to-date and state-of-the-art physical-capital.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This week is Coal Pride Week. Coal is black and it should be proud. Its green as well because no other energy source contributes more to life-enhancing-CO2.

    What’s Black and Green and keeps hundreds of millions of people alive?

    I think we all know the answer to that.

    Is it because coal is BLACK that rich-white-leftists hate it so?

    Is this a black thing?”

  353. graemebird Says:

    YOU LYING CUNT. I showed he was wrong.

    Showing someone is wrong totally is winning the argument.

    If you weren’t lying you could make a winning argument in your own words.

    Stop lying. And don’t let me know if you are coming to Sydney ever.

  354. graemebird Says:

    Humphreys is not a first rate economist. He doesn’t understand economics as we have seen. You are not in a position to make that call I am.

    Fuck off you stupid cunt.

  355. Lyam Says:

    And again Birdy vs Humpreys 🙂

  356. Carlos Says:

    You still have answered, you closet Keynesian arse-bandit.

  357. graemebird Says:

    Hopefully you are talking to Lyam. Here are more lectures on energy economics the realities of which Humphreys must run a mile from:

    “The global warming hoax will be defeated in the realm of public opinion when we start getting years of freezing cold weather.

    And that won’t be too far away.

    But by then we face the prospect of these bastards wrecking the Wests ability to produce and consume ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy.

    And in fact SINCE doing this damage is THE REAL GOAL of the leftists, the public seeing this particular leftist delusion for what it is…. This public recognition won’t necessarily stop the left from continuing with its project to defeat our ability to produce and consume energy.

    Another decade would just likely mean more excuses for the same harmful policies.

    Just last week I received in the mail, two back issues of the brilliant Dr Arthur Robinsons “Access To Energy” newsletter. Later on I expect to get hold of years of these newsletter and my comments will reflect Dr Robinson’s newsletter to some extent. On the other hand what I say ought not be considered as the access-to-energy line.

    Technically we have available as much cheap energy as we want. And the only real cost factor is the capital component of each energy source.

    For most purposes our chief energy sources, with a great deal of the capital ready-to-hand…. (capital in relation to the amount of joules that capital can produce and create useful services in its consumption)….. are the 3 hydro-carbon groups and Nuclear.

    So we have:

    1. Natural Gas.

    2. Coal.

    3. Oil.

    4. Nuclear.

    The short story is that the three hydro-carbons are convertible one-to-eachother. And nuclear is the cheapest form of electricity.

    THE TAKE-HOME-STORY IS THAT THE THREE HYDRO-CARBON TYPES ARE CONVERTIBLE ONE-TO-THE-OTHERS AND NUCLEAR IS THE CHEAPEST FORM OF ELECTRICITY.

    Therefore it is wasteful to our resources to be using up our hydrocarbons on electricity. When coal can be liquified to “oil”

    Gas can be turned to oil and oil to gas as well as coal to gas. Gas and Oil can be probably turned into coal but I don’t see too much call for that.

    The existence of plentiful, cheap energy coming from nuclear power also means that in the conversion process, where possible and economic, we can use nuclear-electricity…………………..so as to not use up too much of the actual fossil fuels themselves………………IN-CONVERSION.

    Now we have plenty of fossil fuels don’t get me wrong. We have hundreds of years of supplies of coal to liquify. And CO2 is just no problem whatsoever. In fact the more the better.

    BUT ITS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.

    Why use up too much of the blessed hydro-carbons just for conversion?

    What are the advantages between gas and synthetic-oil?

    Well liquified-coal aka synthetic-oil is cheaper to transport in tankers. Because it contains so much imbedded energy per weight. Synthetic oil can be put straight into diesel engines RIGHT-NOW. No capital costs involved at all.

    Where I work we use natural gas indoors all the time for fork-lifts and things, because its so clean-burning.

    We have a piece of cleaning equipment called “THE GUERNEY”. A wonderful machine that saves on back-breaking labour, and it uses electricity, diesel, water and lots of detergent if you so choose….

    …((((fan-fucking-tastic. And everything the bad guys hate)))))))….

    ….THE GUERNEY makes cleaning fun. Its just magic. A thing of truth-and-beauty that takes the carpal tunnel syndrome out of cleaning and saves a helluva lot of time.

    But when we use THE GUERNEY inside we have to turn off all the fire alarms. And you can’t use diesel inside for larger equipment, like forklifts, since that would be a health hazard.

    Now liquefied coal is much cleaner then traditional diesel…….

    http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/environment.asp

    ……..So I don’t know if that overcomes the indoors advantage that gas has. If it does liquified coal will be the fuel of choice for most non-electrical applications.

    BUT HERE IS THE KEY POINT. WE CURRENTLY HAVE CAPITAL INVESTED IN MACHINES THAT USE BOTH GAS AND DIESEL. And this capital issue is nothing to be flippant about.

    We need all these fuels because we don’t have unlimited capital. In fact our SAVINGS are just pitiful. And its capital formation that is the key problem in energy production (and by the way, energy production is a key factor in capital accumulation).

    So people who say…. “Oh HO HO. We can just all buy electric cars and put solar panels and wind propellers everywhere”…. anyone who says this has no understanding of the problem whatsoever.

    The fact is that we don’t have that sort of ability to accumulate capital. And even if we did we would have to invest FOSSIL FUEL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY into the accumulation of this alternative capital.

    Capital accumulation IS THE ISSUE. And it can’t be taken for granted.

    Back to the relative advantage of these fuels…..

    Gas is a pretty damn cool fuel. Because its perfectly clean-burning, and its the only fuel you can burn….. that when you switch it off……. the heats gone immediately.

    Superb stuff really.

    For cars, if we had diesel engines we could use liquified coal to run them and actually improve our air quality.

    But the fact is people have already invested in petroleum-fueled cars. And that is nothing to sneeze at. The current capital stock…. IS THE ISSUE. This is something that Rich White Leftists cannot seem to get their heads around.

    But it must be remembered that we will still be getting a lot of oil out of the ground. And its entirely appropriate to keep refining it down to petrol for those particular cars, for this particular energy source.

    As well our ability to liquify coal would be growing over time and the people buying diesel engines for their cars or for machines at work would be also growing over time. So there is a natural growth-and-substitution good-fit going on here. A good-fit that is not to be seen in these wild-assed alternative fuel schemes.

    http://english.people.com.cn/english/200010/04/eng20001004_51838.html

    “Coal liquefaction is the chemical process of adding hydrogen to coal under high temperature and pressure to liquefy coal into crude oil.”

    Well where does the hydrogen come from? Hopefully it will be made via nuclear-produced electricity, to split the water molecules, and we won’t be using up our blessed hydrocarbons in the process.

    The prospect of having plentiful, clean, liquefied-coal also means the ability to have heaps of stand-alone generators everywhere. Stand-alone generators as back-up for the electrical grid. This has efficiency and economic implications. But even more important are the national-security and regional-emergency implications.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So what do we do to overturn the TYRRANY OF THE WATERMELON COMMIES?

    Well we need to face them with a fait accompli. We need to let them know, with one decisive move, that all of their obstruction, lying, legal action, and fear-mongering will be to no avail. And that we Australians are destined, no matter what evil these bastards do, to produce, export and consume massively more energy every year.

    Access-To-Energy suggests the energy sector being seperated and all taxes, charges and regulations be taken off this sector. And the tax-free-status being kept until the United States is a massive energy exporter.

    I agree with this diagnosis totally.

    Money is a coward. And investors are-of-course likely to be spooked, for good reason, by the momentum these evil watermelon-commie-filth have created.

    So the Australian LDP or free enterprisers within the two major parties, putting their efforts into some lame requests for deregulation….. well that just won’t get the job done and I think we all know that.

    This is a fucking war. We are like that American Indian tribe, the members of which, tied their leg to a stake so they had to fight or die. We are like them in that we simply have to win this thing.

    And the best way to win the war is to take action that lets all parties up front know who is going to win. So that the good guys (the investors) and the bad guys (global warming fraudsters, ecologists and leftists) know that its just a mopping up operation right from the start.

    Its got to be a SHORT-WAR because we have to get down to business.

    An Australian version of this scheme will stop the lying-momentum in its tracks.

    We DO tax royalties on extraction and I suggest that this must stay.

    This is a way of conferring property rights on the extractors and once they’ve agreed on the royalty its THEIR BACK YARD. Its their property. So its none of this NOT-IN-MY-BACK-YARD (Nimby) bullshit because its the energy-companies back yard and not yours.

    But after that there ought to be no taxes levied on the extraction/production/conversion and distribution of energy of any sort.

    There is a bit of corporate re-organisation to be done here but thats no big deal. Its because you need each company to be stand-alone in energy and not have its fingers in any other pies in order to qualify for tax-free status.

    AND THAT MEANS NO TAXES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THESE FIRMS EITHER. No income tax. No corporate tax. No State payroll tax. And no regulations to speak of. Even local charges ought not apply except those that are explicitly user-pays. And this will be a catalyst to force localities to move towards more of a user-pays way of doing things.

    Then we can say to the left:

    Give it up…. you’ve lost this one… go away and cause problems in some other areas. Its no use lying about global warming anymore because you aren’t going to destroy our ability to produce energy by your lies.
    >>>>>>>>>>

    But there is one more thing we need to do. This cannot be merely a movement of capital investment from other areas to energy production. We need to find MORE CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

    And we do this via taking the tax off interest earnings, amongst other measures, and particularly via monetary reform.

    Monetary reform to bring down the growth in aggregate spending near zero without it ever turning negative. And that obviously means getting rid of fractional reserve.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    WHAT OUGHT TO BE AUSTRALIAS METRIC TO ENDING THIS SPECIAL TAX STATUS FOR THE ENERGY INDUSTRY.

    This state of affairs ought to be sunsetted. In the meantime we try and get taxes and regulations down close to this level for the rest of the economy.

    But the special tax status could be slated-in-advance to end when Australia is producing and consuming more energy-per-capita, by a significant margin, then any other country in the world.

    You want to have that stipulation in the legislation RIGHT-UP-FRONT.

    It has to be known that the-very-idea is to produce-and-consume more-and-more-energy all the time. And we want to wind up of course with the most physical-capital per-capita. The most per-capita and the most up-to-date and state-of-the-art physical-capital.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    This week is Coal Pride Week. Coal is black and it should be proud. Its green as well because no other energy source contributes more to life-enhancing-CO2.

    What’s Black and Green and keeps hundreds of millions of people alive?

    I think we all know the answer to that.

    Is it because coal is BLACK that rich-white-leftists hate it so?

    Is this a black thing?”

  358. graemebird Says:

    The global warming hoax will be defeated in the realm of public opinion when we start getting years of freezing cold weather.

    And that won’t be too far away.

    But by then we face the prospect of these bastards wrecking the Wests ability to produce and consume ever-increasing amounts of cheap energy.

    And in fact SINCE doing this damage is THE REAL GOAL of the leftists, the public seeing this particular leftist delusion for what it is…. This public recognition won’t necessarily stop the left from continuing with its project to defeat our ability to produce and consume energy.

    Another decade would just likely mean more excuses for the same harmful policies.

    Just last week I received in the mail, two back issues of the brilliant Dr Arthur Robinsons “Access To Energy” newsletter. Later on I expect to get hold of years of these newsletter and my comments will reflect Dr Robinson’s newsletter to some extent. On the other hand what I say ought not be considered as the access-to-energy line.

    Technically we have available as much cheap energy as we want. And the only real cost factor is the capital component of each energy source.

    For most purposes our chief energy sources, with a great deal of the capital ready-to-hand…. (capital in relation to the amount of joules that capital can produce and create useful services in its consumption)….. are the 3 hydro-carbon groups and Nuclear.

    So we have:

    1. Natural Gas.

    2. Coal.

    3. Oil.

    4. Nuclear.

    The short story is that the three hydro-carbons are convertible one-to-eachother. And nuclear is the cheapest form of electricity.

    THE TAKE-HOME-STORY IS THAT THE THREE HYDRO-CARBON TYPES ARE CONVERTIBLE ONE-TO-THE-OTHERS AND NUCLEAR IS THE CHEAPEST FORM OF ELECTRICITY.

    Therefore it is wasteful to our resources to be using up our hydrocarbons on electricity. When coal can be liquified to “oil”

    Gas can be turned to oil and oil to gas as well as coal to gas. Gas and Oil can be probably turned into coal but I don’t see too much call for that.

    The existence of plentiful, cheap energy coming from nuclear power also means that in the conversion process, where possible and economic, we can use nuclear-electricity…………………..so as to not use up too much of the actual fossil fuels themselves………………IN-CONVERSION.

    Now we have plenty of fossil fuels don’t get me wrong. We have hundreds of years of supplies of coal to liquify. And CO2 is just no problem whatsoever. In fact the more the better.

    BUT ITS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING.

    Why use up too much of the blessed hydro-carbons just for conversion?

    What are the advantages between gas and synthetic-oil?

    Well liquified-coal aka synthetic-oil is cheaper to transport in tankers. Because it contains so much imbedded energy per weight. Synthetic oil can be put straight into diesel engines RIGHT-NOW. No capital costs involved at all.

    Where I work we use natural gas indoors all the time for fork-lifts and things, because its so clean-burning.

    We have a piece of cleaning equipment called “THE GUERNEY”. A wonderful machine that saves on back-breaking labour, and it uses electricity, diesel, water and lots of detergent if you so choose….

    …((((fan-fucking-tastic. And everything the bad guys hate)))))))….

    ….THE GUERNEY makes cleaning fun. Its just magic. A thing of truth-and-beauty that takes the carpal tunnel syndrome out of cleaning and saves a helluva lot of time.

    But when we use THE GUERNEY inside we have to turn off all the fire alarms. And you can’t use diesel inside for larger equipment, like forklifts, since that would be a health hazard.

    Now liquefied coal is much cleaner then traditional diesel…….

    http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/environment.asp

    ……..So I don’t know if that overcomes the indoors advantage that gas has. If it does liquified coal will be the fuel of choice for most non-electrical applications.

    BUT HERE IS THE KEY POINT. WE CURRENTLY HAVE CAPITAL INVESTED IN MACHINES THAT USE BOTH GAS AND DIESEL. And this capital issue is nothing to be flippant about.

    We need all these fuels because we don’t have unlimited capital. In fact our SAVINGS are just pitiful. And its capital formation that is the key problem in energy production (and by the way, energy production is a key factor in capital accumulation).

    So people who say…. “Oh HO HO. We can just all buy electric cars and put solar panels and wind propellers everywhere”…. anyone who says this has no understanding of the problem whatsoever.

    The fact is that we don’t have that sort of ability to accumulate capital. And even if we did we would have to invest FOSSIL FUEL AND NUCLEAR ENERGY into the accumulation of this alternative capital.

    Capital accumulation IS THE ISSUE. And it can’t be taken for granted.

    Back to the relative advantage of these fuels…..

    Gas is a pretty damn cool fuel. Because its perfectly clean-burning, and its the only fuel you can burn….. that when you switch it off……. the heats gone immediately.

    Superb stuff really.

    For cars, if we had diesel engines we could use liquified coal to run them and actually improve our air quality.

    But the fact is people have already invested in petroleum-fueled cars. And that is nothing to sneeze at. The current capital stock…. IS THE ISSUE. This is something that Rich White Leftists cannot seem to get their heads around.

    But it must be remembered that we will still be getting a lot of oil out of the ground. And its entirely appropriate to keep refining it down to petrol for those particular cars, for this particular energy source.

    As well our ability to liquify coal would be growing over time and the people buying diesel engines for their cars or for machines at work would be also growing over time. So there is a natural growth-and-substitution good-fit going on here. A good-fit that is not to be seen in these wild-assed alternative fuel schemes.

    http://english.people.com.cn/english/200010/04/eng20001004_51838.html

    “Coal liquefaction is the chemical process of adding hydrogen to coal under high temperature and pressure to liquefy coal into crude oil.”

    Well where does the hydrogen come from? Hopefully it will be made via nuclear-produced electricity, to split the water molecules, and we won’t be using up our blessed hydrocarbons in the process.

    The prospect of having plentiful, clean, liquefied-coal also means the ability to have heaps of stand-alone generators everywhere. Stand-alone generators as back-up for the electrical grid. This has efficiency and economic implications. But even more important are the national-security and regional-emergency implications.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    So what do we do to overturn the TYRRANY OF THE WATERMELON COMMIES?

    Well we need to face them with a fait accompli. We need to let them know, with one decisive move, that all of their obstruction, lying, legal action, and fear-mongering will be to no avail. And that we Australians are destined, no matter what evil these bastards do, to produce, export and consume massively more energy every year.

    Access-To-Energy suggests the energy sector being seperated and all taxes, charges and regulations be taken off this sector. And the tax-free-status being kept until the United States is a massive energy exporter.

    I agree with this diagnosis totally.

    Money is a coward. And investors are-of-course likely to be spooked, for good reason, by the momentum these evil watermelon-commie-filth have created.

    So the Australian LDP or free enterprisers within the two major parties, putting their efforts into some lame requests for deregulation….. well that just won’t get the job done and I think we all know that.

    This is a fucking war. We are like that American Indian tribe, the members of which, tied their leg to a stake so they had to fight or die. We are like them in that we simply have to win this thing.

    And the best way to win the war is to take action that lets all parties up front know who is going to win. So that the good guys (the investors) and the bad guys (global warming fraudsters, ecologists and leftists) know that its just a mopping up operation right from the start.

    Its got to be a SHORT-WAR because we have to get down to business.

    An Australian version of this scheme will stop the lying-momentum in its tracks.

    We DO tax royalties on extraction and I suggest that this must stay.

    This is a way of conferring property rights on the extractors and once they’ve agreed on the royalty its THEIR BACK YARD. Its their property. So its none of this NOT-IN-MY-BACK-YARD (Nimby) bullshit because its the energy-companies back yard and not yours.

  359. graemebird Says:

    Testing testing one two three

  360. Lyam Says:

    Who are you talking to Carlos?

  361. graemebird Says:

    Here are more lectures on energy economics and related matters. Humphreys has not addressed any of the realities in this sort of analysis.

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/liquefied-coal-coal-pride-week-blessed-hydro-carbons-defeating-the-watermelon-commies/

  362. The anti-bird Says:

    #

    YOU LYING CUNT. I showed he was wrong.

    Birdie, your behavior is appalling on this thread. Take stock of what you are saying and learn to behave like a gentleman. A gentleman apologizes graciously if he has made a mistake, but you seem reluctant to. Why?

    Showing someone is wrong totally is winning the argument.

    Correct. JH did it in the nicest way possible which is something you won’t accept for some strange reason.

    If you weren’t lying you could make a winning argument in your own words.

    Why would I do that when JH cut you up limb from limb and left a featherless, fat bird on the kitchen bench ready for roasting.

    Stop lying. And don’t let me know if you are coming to Sydney ever.

    fine then, have it your way.I will and I won’t.

    Humphreys is not a first rate economist.

    Of course he is.

    He doesn’t understand economics as we have seen.

    Of course he does. It just seems that you aren’t able to follow his argument and that’s not really something i would hold against you.

    You are not in a position to make that call I am.

    Of course I am.

    Fuck off you stupid cunt.

    Sorry Birdie, this is a commenters in exile blog. You can’t stop or delete us the way you have been doing. Commie.

  363. graemebird Says:

    I have shown that Humphreys doesn’t understand economics. He is in no way a promising economist. He has flat learning curves and will not take on the other fellows argument. Hence he will never be a good economist.

  364. graemebird Says:

    Cambria. You are an idiot mate. You are in no position to judge these things.

    Humphreys is hopeless. As I proved. Totally flat learning curves.

  365. graemebird Says:

    If he was any good he would have admitted he was wrong.

    Rather then get totally thrashed and run away like that.

  366. The anti-bird Says:

    I have shown that Humphreys doesn’t understand economics.

    No you haven’t. You’ve done no such thing.

    He is in no way a promising economist.

    He’s excellent and one of the best.

    He has flat learning curves and will not take on the other fellows argument.

    Nonsense.

    Hence he will never be a good economist.

    Oh garbage, birdie. He won and you lost miserably.

    Cambria. You are an idiot mate. You are in no position to judge these things.

    Of course I am.

    Humphreys is hopeless. As I proved. Totally flat learning curves.

    Birdie, please apologize to John and get over this “hurdle”. You lost and he won. Now accept it and apologize for this incessant lying by you.

  367. graemebird Says:

    Cambria why are you saying this idiocy. He’s hopeless. I explained why a carbon tax was no good two years ago. He still has no grasp of the topic. Gerry explained matters to him. He barely learned a thing from the experience.

    He’s evasive and has little grasp of business and the real world at all. He’s entirely stuck in static-equilibrium thinking. He’s never shown any promise in the subject at all. He’s barely shown much comprehension let alone any promise as an economist.

  368. graemebird Says:

    Go over the Gerry/Humphreys stuff. Humphreys is entirely oblivious to what Gerry is saying the whole way through. You may as well have stood in for him so hopeless he was.

  369. graemebird Says:

    I proved him wrong. He lied and ran away.

    Clearly I won having proved him utterly wrong.

    Stop lying Cambria.

  370. graemebird Says:

    The Cambria view of arguments is bizzare.

    I proved Humphreys wrong totally. Yet Cambria reckons Humphreys won. Its a bootnigger thing.

  371. Lyam Says:

    “I proved Humphreys wrong totally. Yet Cambria reckons Humphreys won. Its a bootnigger thing.”

    No Birdy, it’s just a psychotic experience for because you live in your own universe.

    ant-bird has a point. You should apologize to Humphreys for your foul language and your lies.

  372. Carlos Says:

    WTF is a ‘bootnigger’? Sorry for my ignorance, but I’m curious to know.

  373. Carlos Says:

    Come on birdy, speak to uncle Carlos. What is the meaning of this epithet? Are you a racist, or is it an obscure reference that I haven’t come across yet?

  374. The anti-bird Says:

    a black shoe cleaner.

  375. Carlos Says:

    A jihad on rent-boy bird, then. A jihad, my rent-boy friend.

  376. The anti-bird Says:

    No, No jihad on the Bird, Carlos. Bird is an offensive oaf, but everyone is used to his pathetic abuse now.

    Birdie gets sore when you present him with obvious facts which in this case John won the argument and Bird hit a wind turbine blade.

  377. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    I think by “boot nigger” Bird means, in a metaphorical sense, someone who refuses to elevate himself from a subordinate position e.g. a taxeating science worker who refuses to recognise that, given the length of a brontosaurus neck, the big bang could never have occurred.

    Of course, it’s an obnoxious, offensive and ignorant phrase to use. And it makes no sense at all. But I don’t think it’s intentionally racist.

    On the other hand, the names he uses for Soon and JC sometimes are clearly deliberately racist.

    Graeme feels threatened by people who are different because he thinks they will try to take his job stacking shelves at Woolies. (He doesn’t realise Soon and JC already make much more money than he does.)

    And Graeme’s feeling particularly frustrated right now because he lost an argument with Humphreys, bigtime.

  378. Andrew Says:

    Your Honour,
    I humbly crave to submit that our mutual, learned friend, Mr. Graeme Montgomery Bird, has in fact lost every argument he has recently taken up.
    These cosist of (inter alia):
    1. Fractional Reserve Banking (where I had the pleasure to be one of his many interlocutors)
    2. Pyramids and other structures on Mars (ditto)
    3. That carbon dioxide release is good for the planet (one I largely kept out of).
    4. A carbon tax is worse than an income tax (ditto)
    5. An equity investment at a level that does not even get to the level of an accounting associate in a mining company predominately listed in the United Kingdom amounts to a communist takeover of Australian assets (ditto).
    6. The Earth is expanding (new one on me)
    7. The Sun is not, in fact, powered by fusion (ditto)
    8. The Standard Model of quantum physics is fraudulent (yet another one I largely kept out of – but not entirely in this case)
    9. He is the only libertarian in the World, as to disagree with him means that you are not a libertarian and no-one agrees with everything he says.
    10. Any others that I may have missed.
    .
    That, your Honour, is my humble submission.

  379. The anti-bird Says:

    Yea:

    You guys missed the reversed speech thread. Birdie thinks that playing a tape in reverse and hearing sounds the resemble words is some sort or subliminal message.

  380. Lyam Says:

    Your Honor,

    The defense would like to introduce exhibit 23-AS-4 regarding point 8 of the Attorney’s submission.

    The exhibit is a quote from Schroedinger himself saying about quantum mechanics;

    “I don’t like it, and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it. ”

    The defense rests.

  381. The anti-bird Says:

    I wonder if we can make this into 1000 comment thread for the week?

  382. Lyam Says:

    Anti-bird

    “I wonder if we can make this into 1000 comment thread for the week?”

    Well we can try to get him started on your reversed speech thing, although the Mars pyramids is quite good because it’s so easy to debunk 🙂

  383. graemebird Says:

    “Lyam Says:
    February 25, 2009 at 5:16 am
    Even the layman that I am understands that a carbon tax is no different than any other consumption tax.”

    No two people could be this idiotic and Cambria is accounted for. This means that Lyam is really a Humphreys sock puppet. No member of the laity could be this dimwitted about economics. With our neoclassical dummies reality doesn’t matter. The model comes first.

    I’ll just have to assume that Lyam is Humphreys. And thats th explanation why he’s such a fuckwit.

  384. graemebird Says:

    “A carbon tax is not a targeted tax on capital accumulation. All taxes effect capital, so that is not a point of differentiation.”

    This is such a ridiculous absolutist statement. Surely we can rank taxes on the basis of how directly they hurt or distort capital accumulation. Remembering that capital spending is nine-tenths of what the study of economics ought to be. Since we define economics as the study of wealth creation. Then we observe that wealth creation is mostly to do with companies investing in capital goods and business development. Throwing their revenues back into the business operations. But not simply to provide the same goods and services that they had been providing.

    Rather the study of wealth creation is the study of what makes these guys “renovate” their business. Spend time and money building and improving their business and not merely working in their business.

    The writer of the popular business book the E-Myth stresses that the idea is for the business owner to get himself in a position where he is working ON and not IN the business. The study of wealth creation then is the study of what circumstances will motivate the business to throw all their energies and resources from their revenues back into making their business superior tomorrow to what it was yesterday.

    Analysis of business spending in an economy where Gross Domestic Revenue is static tells us that the emphasis is on capital spending to reduce recurring costs. Thats a good way to look at it since it lends itself to mathematical examples. But this is not to forget that business renovation is also about spending manhours just getting things right and also improving ones quality of output not merely reducing the cost.

  385. graemebird Says:

    I cannot write too much in any one post or I’ll lose what I’ve written.

    But continuing on lets look at what Humphreys has said. Since it really looks like his argument with Gerry did lead him to read some stuff on Austrian Capital Theory but only enough to find the excuses he needed.

    “A carbon tax is not a targeted tax on capital accumulation. All taxes effect capital, so that is not a point of differentiation.”

    1.A carbon tax is not a targeted tax on capital accumulation. True or False.

    FALSE.

    Yes it is. And more effectively so then any other tax in 2009. Its a targeted tax causing capital distortion and destruction. Insofar as this tax is successful it will both distort and reduce capital accumulation. This makes it worse dollar for dollar then company income tax on retained earnings. Because the latter doesn’t lead to irrational energy use during an energy crisis. Its true that company tax on retained earnings is a direct tax on capital accumulation. No getting around that. But while, like the carbon tax, it will reduce capital accumulation, It will not distort capital spending with reference to energy production decisions. There are other factors making it more severe as well. Since with new projects it may take some years to turn a profit income tax won’t be applicable. But carbon tax will.

    2. All taxes effect capital, so that is not a point of differentiation.” True Or False.

    TRUE.

    If there was any exception at all it would probably be land value tax that had been in place 30 years prior. But Humphreys is right here. But he’s entirely absolutist about it. Suddenly he decides that no tax is worse than any other. Which is not true at all. Some taxes really are more poxy then others. The more direct the attack on reinvestment the more appalling the tax will be. Other taxes are appalling for other reasons. Like payroll tax for example. So Humphreys is taking an all or nothing approach here. He is saying that if they all affect capital whats the big deal? So all of a sudden no discrimination is necessary or possible. This is quite wrong. A 20% sting on income above 200 000 to me is less offensive to a 10% sting on the retained earnings of a humble subcontractor. The latter is a more direct tax on capital accumulation. We can show some discrimination here. It is the economists role to do just that. But this here 10% sting, as unacceptable as it is, is not as bad as carbon-tax in 2009. Since this will lead to major distortion in the way we invest to produce energy.

    3. so that is not a point of differentiation. TRUE OR FALSE.

    As already discussed this is false. While we ought be always emphasising mass-sackings and the closing of bureaucracies tax policy does matter. We do have to consider what tax policy will better allow for business improvement.

  386. graemebird Says:

    To clarify. While its true that all taxes affect capital they are not going to all do so in the same way or to the same degree. The first half of his statement is right while the second half of the statement is wrong.

  387. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Graeme

    What do you make of this

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/science/27foot.html?hp

  388. Lyam Says:

    Birdy birdy,

    We know all that. The point you are completely missing is that off the shelve renewable sources of energy (in particular solar) which aren’t competitive today would become competitive if a carbon tax is imposed.

    In the case of solar panels for example, all the energy providers have to do to enter this new market is to provide installation and maintenance services. No expensive research and no new technologies they aren’t familiar with. This market would also be accessible to small businesses all across the country.

    The same reasoning applies to building weathering to reduce energy consumption for heating/cooling.

    Your whole argument is locked up in the idea that what is good for the big energy providers is good for the consumers, which is simply not true. For a healthy market we need alternatives to the big suppliers.

    As I write I haven’t seen any serious study along those lines, so I can’t assess if the alternatives would really become competitive.

    I am perfectly open to a reasoned rebuttal of the above, but not to a dogmatic rant.

  389. Steve Edney Says:

    The foot print is clear evidence for a contracting earth. Earlier humans walked with a stooped gate due to the oppressive weight of gravity. Since we are now able to walk completely upright it is clear that gravity must have decreased and hence the earth must have contracted. I suspect some process involving the decompossion of matter into gravity waves is causing the heating of the sun and may explain why the expansion of the universe may be accelerating.

    The evidence is convergent. A contracting earth explains mountains as the surface contracts they are forced up and oceans as the regions where the matter is giving way.

  390. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Stop lying Edney you cunt.

    It’s proof that the moon was much smaller 1.5m years ago.

    You see as the moon got bigger through energy converting to mass, it exerted a stronger gravitational pull on our ancestors’ heads. That’s what made them walk upright.

  391. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Those footprints are direct convergent evidence for the expanding moon theory.

    So we now have three lines of convergence. One, brontosaurus neck. Two, Graeme popping a chubby every time he sees Jamie Durie on Backyard Blitz. Three, those footprints.

    So stop lying.

  392. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    This one’s for you, Graeme.

  393. graemebird Says:

    “Graeme

    What do you make of this

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/science/27foot.html?hp

    Just some fellow going out for a bit of a stride.

  394. graemebird Says:

    “We know all that. The point you are completely missing is that off the shelve renewable sources of energy (in particular solar) which aren’t competitive today would become competitive if a carbon tax is imposed.”

    What this means is:

    1. Less energy production.

    2. Less capital accumulation.

    4. Such investment in energy production capital accumulation as their might be will be made on irrational grounds.

  395. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    yes but what sort of fella, Graeme? A watery ape? An Explodian? A prehistoric science worker?

  396. graemebird Says:

    He just looks like some cunt walking. Perhaps whistling the better highlights of Handels water music as he walks.

  397. John Humphreys Says:

    Graeme — you write words but you don’t make arguments. You simply assert that a carbon tax is worse than other taxes, but provide no coherent reason.

    A carbon tax is just a discriminatory consumption tax. An income tax has a more direct impact on capital accumulation because it (1) creates a disincentive against work; and (2) taxes savings, which turns into investment, which turns into capital.

    Learn, boy. Learn.

  398. Lyam Says:

    What this means is:

    1. Less energy production.
    ok

    2. Less capital accumulation.
    for the energy producers, not for the state which then could give tax reliefs will still balancing it’s budget.

    4. Such investment in energy production capital accumulation as their might be will be made on irrational grounds.
    False. It would be completely rational for households to invest in alternatives in order to decrease their dependency on big energy suppliers.

    Again you consider only the point of view of the energy providers.

  399. Lyam Says:

    Birdy, your post

    “Opportunity Cost” False Doctrine Leads To Bad Mental Habits.”
    Posted February 26, 2009 by graemebird

    completely misses the point. In particular:

    1/ Opportunity Cost is an analysis tool by definition nobody is claiming it is a real cost. No need to make an argument.
    2/ The analysis tool is used to estimate the true cost of seizing ONE opportunity, not to select amongst several options.

    For the rest, go here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

    And learn.

  400. The anti-bird Says:

    Lyam

    The Bird once argued there is no such thing as opportunity cost and that it is a socialist construct. I kid you not. Opportunity cost is one of the most important pillars of economics.

    Bird loses every single argument when it comes to economics because he isn’t very good at it. In fact he’s dreadful.

  401. Steve Edney Says:

    Bird has clearly avoided my contracting earth breakthrough. Clearly bipedalism of humans is convergent evidence of decreasing gravity, and the new paradigm explains many other things like the accelerating expansion of the universe, mountains and oceans.

    Bird shows exactly the behaviour we would expect from the Bully-boy expansionists, even to the point of ignoring competing hypothesis.

  402. The anti-bird Says:

    You’re right steve, The expansionists are bigger bullies than the neo-con cabal 🙂

  403. J Edgar Hoover Says:

    Gra gra baby where did you put the lubricant?

  404. DH Says:

    Well speaking for myself, I’m completely offended that Graeme has ignored my new hypothesis that earth expansion is negated by the geological panty-hose covering the stretch marks.

  405. J Edgar Hoover Says:

    baby if you’ve lost the lubricant you’re going to have to get another. otherwise my arse is closed for business tonight baby

  406. Pink Flamingo Says:

    Mr Birdy,

    You think you’re a man but you are only a boy
    You think you’re man but you are only a toy
    You think you’re a man but you just couldn’t see
    You were never man enough to satisfy me!

  407. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    the geological panty-hose covering the stretch marks

    Which is convergent evidence for my theory that the Panama Canal is a c-section scar.

  408. Graeme Bird Says:

    Eddy

    No lube tonight. I want to feel it rough in my butthole. And remember it’s your turn to be on top tonight.

    kisses,
    your bossy bottom Gra-Gra

  409. graemebird Says:

    No Humphreys you are a liar. And you are so incredibly ignorant. Skipping lectures gets to be a bad habit. But in Australia showing up to them may be even worse from what I’ve seen.

    “Graeme — you write words but you don’t make arguments…..

    LIE. I’VE BEEN EXPLAINING TO YOU FOR TWO YEARS WHY CARBON TAX IS PARTICULARLY HARMFUL

    You simply assert that a carbon tax is worse than other taxes, but provide no coherent reason.

    ANOTHER LIE. HUMPHREYS IS JUST LYING THE WHOLE TIME. IF HE DOESN’T WANT TO DEAL WITH A LINE OF ARGUMENT THE COWARD PRETENDS IT DOESN’T EXIST. THIS WAS THE CASE WHEN HE ARGUED WITH GERRY AS WELL. WHAT ABOUT THE HYDROGEN DEARTH ARGUMENT HUMPHREYS? IT DOESN’T EXIST RIGHT? WHAT ABOUT THE FALLING REVENUES DUE TO INVESTMENT DISTORTION HUMPHREYS…… DOESN’T EXIST. WHAT ABOUT THE CAPITAL ACCUMULATION IN ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANIES HUMPHREYS? (LINC, COUGAR, CARBON AUSTRALIA ET AL) DOESN’T EXIST.

    HUMPHREYS YOU MUST ENGAGE THE ARGUMENTS RATHER THEN PRETENDING THEY ARE NOT THERE.

    “A carbon tax is just a discriminatory consumption tax.”

    No its not. Its a producer goods tax primarily. Get it right Humphreys. It will be primarily business paying this tax. Its no excise at point of sale. How is it that you can get something so horribly wrong?

    “An income tax has a more direct impact on capital accumulation because it (1) creates a disincentive against work; and (2) taxes savings, which turns into investment, which turns into capital.”

    But thats if you are talking about a consumption tax. Which its not. It is business that produces CO2. Not consumers. So its not a consumption tax. What you say above is pretty right for a consumption tax but CO2 is a producer activities tax and obviously so.

    So you get an F. Thats a failing grade since you were wrong on every last point.

    Having to lie and getting things so wrong….. what is this telling you. This ought to be telling you that you are on the wrong track Humphreys. If you had wanted a consumption tax advocate that. But thats not a CO2 tax. CO2 being something primarily produced in industry.

  410. graemebird Says:

    “Bird has clearly avoided my contracting earth breakthrough. Clearly bipedalism of humans is convergent evidence of decreasing gravity, and the new paradigm explains many other things like the accelerating expansion of the universe, mountains and oceans.”

    We are small bipedals so it doesn’t mean anything. And comparing us in size to the earlier bidpedals gives matters away. The universe isn’t expanding in any known way. So that one is going nowhere.

  411. graemebird Says:

    “The Bird once argued there is no such thing as opportunity cost and that it is a socialist construct. I kid you not. Opportunity cost is one of the most important pillars of economics.”

    But its wrong. Sloppy doctrine. A fantasy revenue is not a real cost. Lyam doesn’t realise to that people will argue black and blue that it is a real cost. He claims that its only me saying it.

  412. graemebird Says:

    Opportunity cost may purport to be a tool of analysis. But since its a sloppily defined concept it can only be a tool of poor analysis. It tends to pigeon-hole analysis into the endemic generation of false dichotomies. Whereas we have to always recognise and infinity of choices. That it constitutes really bad analysis, and leads to bad mental habits was the whole point of the thread.

    We see Humphreys constantly forcing a square peg into a round hole with the false choice of cap-and-kill or carbon-tax….. Then another moment and he’ll be constructing a false choice between carbon and income-tax. So his entire thinking consists largely of a series of episodes involving the construction of false bilateral choices. And yesterday we saw a striking example of Sinclair pulling the exact same idiocy.

  413. DH Says:

    “The universe isn’t expanding in any known way. So that one is going nowhere.”

    Curse that pesky red shift.

  414. Steve Edney Says:

    DH don’t you know anything, light gets red-shifted when it gets tired and loses energy from traveling so far through space. At least in the Birdiverse.

  415. graemebird Says:

    Well the argument here has ground to a halt. Humphreys has simply:

    1. lied about the line of reasoning of mine. Claiming that it doesn’t exist so he doesn’t have to deal with it.

    2. Mis-characterised a producer goods tax as a targeted consumption tax.

    Lets summarise the arguments in dot-point form so Humphreys looks foolish pretending that they have never been made relentlessly for 3 years.

    1. Distortion of capital accumulation. Forcing irrational investment insofar as energy production is concerned. Armtwisting people to set up more gas turbines as opposed to coal.

    2. Since energy production usually requires multi-year investments prior to revenues being generated carbon tax will be a death blow to setting up major coal electricity plants or large nuclear power plants. The fact of carbon tax falling even prior to any profits being made making it particularly destructive to capital formation.

    3. Since capital formation is always energy intensive, and the use of capital also requires energy……. in this way also this is a tax directly inimical to capital formation. And one which would continue to be so unless we already had saturation nuclear energy at the level of France or better.

    4. The hydrogen-dearth argument. Strategically the carbon-tax will throw our investments way off course and in a massive way. Since in the mix of energy alternatives our options currently are carbon rich and hydrogen poor. This would be the case unless we already had a powerful nuclear industry and a fully developed industry for retrieving and using ocean floor methane-clathrates. In accordance with this the very first thing that ought to be done TOMORROW is the guarantee that there will never be an excise on diesel or liquified-coal for 50 years at least. An iron-clad guarantee so that people realise their next car ought to be a diesel car.

  416. Steve Edney Says:

    Scientific method Bird style.

    1) Find two facts. Preferable on Youtube.

    2) Unify these two facts by making some new claim.

    3) write a blog post and call it convergent evidence so beyond doubt.

    4) suport you claim with tangetial analogies.

    5) call everyone a cunt who points out why your idea contradicts many other observed phenomena.

    6) claim all contradictoray facts are produced by tax-eating science workers and bully boy advocates of the status quo.

    7) repeat from step 1

  417. graemebird Says:

    The pesky red shift is based on illogic. The red shift doctrine is actually one of the worst and most embarrassing in all scientific history. The claim is that because red shift is caused by doppler it is ONLY caused by doppler.

    Totally irrational.

  418. Steve Edney Says:

    No doppler is not the only redshift. It can also be gravitational and due to the expansion of space.

  419. graemebird Says:

    We have an authentic environmental problem and its overfishing. Australia can do its best to alleviate this global problem by becoming, via tax exemptions and sound homesteading laws, the lowest cost producer of aqua-cultural products. But neoclassical static-equilibrium models wrongly imply that tax exemptions create investment distortion. Always it goes without saying that good policy starts with mass-sackings and massive spending cuts. But that aside its a big problem when our economists have things so terribly wrong in general.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    The best thing Australia can do to alleviate world poverty is to become the lowest cost producer in synthetic diesel. This means getting to the point of using nuclear generated heat, hydrogen and electricity in converting carbon resources to synthetic diesel. It also means getting to where nuclear has crowded out coal in electricity generation and liquified-coal exports have crowded out standard coal exports.

    Now this is one possible future in many thousands. And one which requires a lot of work in government to at least make possible. In terms of persuasion persuasion persuasion……….

    Since all localities have their own rules and the Feds cannot wave a magic wand and completely install property rights the only alternative is for them to negotiate with each locality to pre-approve areas for potential nuclear and coal-liquification use. The idea is to pre-approve thousands more territories then could possibly be used for this purpose so that its a buyers market. Or at least the real estate for this purpose isn’t a sellers market.

    This pre-approval as a substitute for sound property-rights, which the Feds cannot realistically deliver on, is also necessary for such things as the building of excess wharf capacity.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Above is an example of one of the many potential great futures we have in store for us. Carbon tax destroys this in the crib and for no reason. So the carbon-tax advocacy is the epitome of anti-economics. It fails to comprehend that economics is about things unseen and so we are watching Humphreys blithely destroying opportunities that he is unable to imagine by sheer stupidity and analytical failure.

  420. DH Says:

    But couldn’t the universe be held in a steady-state by means of galactic underwear?

    I’m sure I read that on a blog somewhere and it would be irresponsible of me not to mention it.

  421. J Edgar Hoover Says:

    “We have an authentic environmental problem and its overfishing. Australia can do its best to alleviate this global problem by becoming, via tax exemptions and sound homesteading laws, the lowest cost producer of aqua-cultural products. ”

    Selective tax exemptions = industry policy and picking winners.

    Socialist.

  422. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    we are watching Humphreys blithely destroying opportunities that he is unable to imagine

    Graeme, isn’t that a long-winded way of saying that there is an opportunity cost associated with Humphrey’s proposal?

  423. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Graeme

    Could you please speak briefly to the topic of what sort of armed satellite flotilla you would envision Australia having in an ideal world.

  424. graemebird Says:

    Industry policy is good if it involves no subsidies.

    The misunderstanding comes from failed neoclassical analysis. Von Mises understood that tax loopholes were the holes through which capitalism breathes. Yet the neoclassicals are so conceptually stunted they seem to place great emphasis on making sure that everyone is equally persecuted.

    This must be resolved because you guys are wrong and I am right. The problem rests with your inability to understand the reality over your textbook models.

    It would be ok to have textbook models if they weren’t such crude and idiotic ones.

    Its imperative that we immediately drop all taxes on fish-farming and on diesel. If we were to privatize schools and medicine it would be of the utmost importance that this came with tax exemptions.

    This is a fact.

    Only ignorance in economics is blinding our wormtongue thief-economists to these facts.

    WE……MUST……HAVE……INDUSTRY………POLICY.

    Its absolutely essential since we do not have property rights.

  425. graemebird Says:

    All of you must admit that you have no understanding and you must understand this:

    IN THE ABSENCE OF BEING ABLE TO GRANT FULL PROPERTY RIGHTS WE MUST HAVE INDUSTRY POLICY.

    This ought to be obvious. Since otherwise no aquaculture (just for one example) could get off the ground since there would be no way to allocate sea-based property.

    No energy-generation could get off the ground since no-one is allowed to buy farmland and set up a nuclear power station without permission.

    I’M RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG.

    Industry policy is essential. And its essential given we don’t have full property rights. There is no getting around this. How could there be?

  426. graemebird Says:

    Take the building of wharves just for one example. There is no way a wharf can be built without political favouratism in the current environment. Hence to avoid cronyism and to have a proper capitalistic supply of wharves INDUSTRY POLICY IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.

    This fact also highlights the utter betrayal of wanting to flog our existing wharves off to foreign governments ever, and to foreign investors prior to us having reformed that industry, at first via industry policy, but hopefully following up with a less ad hoc restoration of property rights.

    In 2009 nothing serious can get done without industry rights stepping in as an ad hoc stand-in for property rights.

    Thats just a fact and it is a measure of our economists utter ignorance of economics that they cannot comprehend this.

  427. graemebird Says:

    “Graeme

    Could you please speak briefly to the topic of what sort of armed satellite flotilla you would envision Australia having in an ideal world.”

    Space-based laser cannot obsolete all nuclear weapons. But it can obsolete TOTALLY and entire class of them. That is to say that space-based laser can totally obsolete ICBM’s.

    This project is too expensive to be able to do in an absolutist and fast way. The way to build up a thin but slowly improving cover is to just piggy-back on other peoples space missions. Let it be known that each time someone is going up there anyway that we can reduce some of their overhead if they have some spare cargo-space. Make sure everything we do is at cut-price-rates.

    We don’t want that absolutist thinking that tells us we cannot get started with this simply because we cannot get complete cover all up front at an affordable cost. Make haste slowly.

  428. graemebird Says:

    Jason Soon. Have you not been mentally retarded on this industry policy and tax exemptions long enough?

    You still haven’t learnt anything.

    Ferral fish farming isn’t performed within any sort of traditional capitalism with property-rights. Its fundamentally high-tech hunter-gathering. So how on earth can taking aquaculture out of the tax system be some sort of distortion?

    Your inability to learn anything in this regard, even when the bloody bleeding obvious is presented to you……. is oppressive and deeply harmful for this society.

    Now can you not see that there is a big problem with economics in this country.

    There are certain conclusions to do with how the market would work if there were functioning property rights.

    AND YOU DUMB BASTARD, YOU LOSE THE CONTEXT AND GRAFT ON THE CONCLUSIONS WHERE THEY ARE SIMPLY NOT APPROPRIATE.

    If there was no zoning, and any one of us could buy a chunk of farmland and set up a generator without asking permission, then this perhaps would mean that we didn’t need industry policy.

    If any of us could homestead a wharf on any public property then its possible that we might not need an industry policy.

    But the upshot is that we need an industry policy. Its just so fucking obvious its rude to so much as deny it.

  429. graemebird Says:

    I suppose that having Hong Kong as a free territory was just terribly distorting to all economics in the region? Just a terrible distortion to the economies that surrounded it?

    Neoclassical economics is so untenable that it implies just that. It implies we cannot set an industry or a region free.

  430. Lyam Says:

    Birdy at his finest, TOTALLY UNHINGED, MIND BOGGLING 🙂

  431. Lyam Says:

    Birdy

    Your latest thoughts

    “Ending World Poverty Means Defeating The Devastating Flaw In Neoclassical Economics.”
    Posted February 27, 2009 by graemebird

    are reaching new highs in mental confusion.

    In particular:

    “The best thing Australia can do to alleviate world poverty is to become the lowest cost producer in synthetic diesel.”

    That would ensure Australia’s good fortune, i.e. becoming to synthetic diesel what the middle east is to oil. It wouldn’t bring any country out of poverty. They would become our bitches.

    Fight against poverty is about empowerment. One of the most efficient places to produce synthetic diesel using nuclear power (if that is even possible or makes any sense) would be Niger because they sit on one of the largest reserves of uranium.

    Note: I fucked up and posted this previously in the wrong thread. Sorry.

  432. Lyam Says:

    SPOILER ALERT

    Our world class bullcrap producer is going for the big prize.

    His next topic: industry policy.

    I don’t know about you, but I can’t wait!

  433. graemebird Says:

    “Fight against poverty is about empowerment. One of the most efficient places to produce synthetic diesel using nuclear power (if that is even possible or makes any sense) would be Niger because they sit on one of the largest reserves of uranium.”

    If we were the most capital intensive economy in the world, had paid off all our foreign debts, and were the lowest cost producer of nuclear-power-enhanced liquid diesel, then sure we could set up part of our act in Niger.

    This is a potential future that Humphreys is getting in the way of in his most ignorant and ego-driven fashion.

  434. Lyam Says:

    Completely besides the point. you claim that

    “The best thing Australia can do to alleviate world poverty is to become the lowest cost producer in synthetic diesel.”

    But in fact you only consider Australia’s interests, not reducing world poverty.

  435. graemebird Says:

    No I think we ought to help reduce world poverty in our own interests. And this would do it as well as sorting out our own property-rights environment.

  436. graemebird Says:

    Its actually really irresponsible to be using coal for electricity when we could be using uranium and thorium instead. And using the energy from uranium to add to the process of the conversion of coal and other sources of carbon to liquid diesel. We ought to be a responsible country and not do things in an irresponsible way.

  437. Lyam Says:

    I don’t have anything against working in our interests, but stop bullshitting me with world poverty.

    Producing biodiesel in Australia won’t get third world countries out of poverty, even if it’s slightly cheaper than petroleum based diesel.

    Besides, it makes no sense to ship biodiesel across the world. Since almost any biological base can be used, the most cost effective way, is to decentralize production.

  438. Mark Hill Says:

    Lyam – it was a laff riot when Graeme told me whan incompetent fool I was when I introduced him to the concept of opportunity costs. What Graeme doesn’t know is that opportunity cost is the second thing taught to any TAFE/University student that ever studies economics. Hence my doubts about Graeme’s academic credentials. What Graeme also doesn’t realise is that his hero, Gerry Jackson, who is a superb writer but went a little too far in attacking some libertarians over a carbon tax is that Gerry always refers back to this pivotal tool of analysis – but Graeme is too slow to pick up on this.

    If there is a way of converting biological carbon sources to LNG and then LNG to diesel Lyam, you may be entirely wrong.

    Now Graeme, here are some ideas you can use when arguing against carbon mitigation:

    1. The benefits of abolishing global trade and investment barriers would significantly increase global incomes, as so would an agreement to reduce capital taxation and total public outlays. The increase in incomes would alter the assumptions of studies like Stern in so far as the mitigation then has a net loss.

    2. The Stern report is too flawed to rely upon, vis a vis GDP growth and capital budgeting criteria.

    3. (Assuming mitigation has a net benefit): It would be much cheaper to simply apply a small Georgist tax, abolish fule taxes and subsidies, coinciding with income tax cuts, and fund a tree planting programme. This may be cheaper than a tax or cap and trade scheme. (I’ve done some figures on this and it actually looks reasonable).

    4. The tax vs cap and trade argument John notes.

    5. Assumptions about technology and resources: the Garnaut report for example, in my opinion has vastly underestiamted non rainfall and non surface water in assessing the viability of agriculture in southern australia.

    6. There is a strong argument that if we cut carbon subsidies, opened up nuclear and other restrictions against alternative energy (bias against wind turbines for example for spurious or now outdated criticisms) we would have much more power and emit carbon at a rate we can absorb.

    7. Nuclear is actually cheaper than coal. Geothermal is cheaper as well, and solar is the the least viable – see investment bank’s recent analysis on the costs of energy for more.

    8. Graeme asserts more CO2 is good. Maybe he is right. What matter is is the pace that society can adapt to changes. If CO2 is the “LORD OF CREATION” as Graeme asserts, that might come at the costs of displacing people and having large adjustment costs in fine tuning new sustainable agricultural systems. What matters is that we can accumulate capital at a rate that allows us to do so or to junk carbon when we can.

    9. If carbon has an external cost, then mitigation isn’t necessarily warranted – I have not seen a rigorous CBA that supports mitigation yet. Also, Australia’s CO2 output may be negligible considering China’s increasing output. A better policy may simply be to allow more uranium exports and mines. These will have a future benefit and can more than make up for an unrestricted current and near future output of CO2.

    Graeme is correct – the carbon tax is a tax on capital. A revenue neutral or revenue neutral version of the Gerogist tax to fund tree planting might be the lowest cost solution of all – but only necessary if a net benefit can be proven in mitigation.

    What matters is that the carbon tax seeks to make up for a lack of property rights. Those impacted by a negative externality can always benefit from the social welfare gains of production – and possibly positive externalities arising from production as well. It is the costs of adjustment, or inter temporal opportunity costs that always matter in these analyses. Even if Graeme is ultimately right, and we cannot accumulate capital fast enough to deal with changes in climate, land use and so on, then we should moderate it if we can.

    10. IS CARBON POLLUTION REALLY A “MARKET FAILURE”?

    Given the level of public information, recognition of a potential problem, and possible alternatives that would alleviate problems of quick adjustment to a higher carbon concentration world, is there really market failure or a lack of motivation by society in general? Why don’t we export clean uranium to dirty China? Why don’t wealthy, concerned anti mitigation types cooperate with educated, concerned pro mitigation types to form an “environmental defence fund” to actually reverse human induced climate change vis a vis tree planting, iron seeding and lobbying the removal of restrictions on uranium and spurious regulations against some alternative energy types along with funding research on energy alternatives as well as water recycling and farming systems that may become important if climate change occurs and occurs too quickly for most societies around the world?

    Is that really a market failure or a lack of motivation or a lack of initiative?

    ————————–

    Now Graeme, the science debate aside, what pro mitigation person could possibly argue with all of this and come out on top of the argument with a position arguing for a costly cap and trade system?

  439. The Hon. Mr Justice Tillman AO QC BNC Says:

    Graeme

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my request that you speak to the topic of Australia’s presence in space.

    So could you please turn your mind to the following questions:

    1. What should be Australia’s grand strategy for space? Do we want dominance or do we just want to not get left behind?

    2. How many military satellites do we need?

    3. What weapons should they carry? Purely ASAT or also a ground attack capability?

    4. How should they be powered? Nuclear? Liquefied coal? Diesel?

    5. When should we unleash the fuckers? A long time ago I suggested that it would be a good idea if we had a hardened fleet of biodiesel satellites ready to blast the absolute living fuck out of anything that looks remotely Chinese that gets more than six inches off the ground. DO you agree?

  440. graemebird Says:

    Our strategy would be to just build up our capability in the cost-effective way described.

  441. Mark Hill Says:

    WTF Birdie?

    From your blog –

    “Just as a make-believe revenue is no real cost….. Just as the concept of “human capital” is a travesty of a definition leading to bad analysis…….. in the same way it is unacceptable to call a long-term guaranteed tax exemption A SUBSIDY. It is also wrong to assume, as neoclassical analysis does, that “not one slave can be released until all slaves can be released at once”. Thats an analogy to say that neoclassicals, with their flawed analysis, get in the way of free trade areas and of special-purpose tax exemptions.”

    1. Gibberish. 2. What is wrong with Becker? HC has depreciation etc like physical capital. 3. A guaranteed tax exemption that is exclusive is a subsidy Graeme. 4. Orthodox economics does not assume that. The discipline wants unilateral free trade but will ask for conditional trade agreements if unilateral free trade is not possible.

    Please stop your misrepresentation of economics and physics on your site.

  442. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme, are you chickening out of the lively debate as well as backing any ludicrous claim you make?

    Z’s blog might have some very positive social impacts.

    Z, I might nominate you for Australian of the Year.

  443. Lyam Says:

    Birdy’s last pile of crap (commented) 🙂


    The Movement Of Continents Is Impossible Without New Matter Creation.


    Posted March 1, 2009 by graemebird

    FALSE: The volume of a given amount (mass) of matter depends on the temperature, expecially when it changes state from liquid to solid. Dense lava when plunged into water creates a rock substancially larger in volume than in liquid form. That is how lateral forces are created in the seafloor when volcanos errupt.


    Where would the force otherwise come from? How would that force get traction? The continents are huge. And they are fully locked in since the surrounding oceans have solid sea floors. Only the huge forces generated by new matter creation could even POSSIBLY explain the movement of a body as large as Antarctica.

    Seafloors are not uniformally solid the same way continents aren’t.
    You will find a full description of plate techtonics here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
    for a descrition of the structure of the earth go here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth
    and for a historic account of the evolution of continental drift theory go here
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_drift


    But before this is easily understood by even the dimmest of punters we must deal with the real reasons why they would find this hard to believe. The reason behind the reasons.

    To beleive what?
    You have only asked questions without even taking the time to document yourself.


    Here is some points I’ve made in support of Neal Adams elesewhere:

    This is going to be rich 🙂


    Gresham’s law surfaces in many varieties and certainly there is one relating to paradigms. About the time that neal was discovering his thesis, the Big Bang theory was just beginning to get locked in. This universe really isn’t large enough for both theories. And the only reason the expanding earth theory isn’t accepted already is that the Big Bang theory IS.


    Continental drift theory has nothing to do with The Big Bang theory.


    The Big Bang theory wasn’t quite fully locked in when I was a kid. Which makes it hard for me to be patient with real dummies like Phil Plait who adheres to this most stupid of paradigms with dogmatic zeal. Plait, lacking any evidence for his theology, seems to have monopolised the skeptic mantle and taken almost all the impressionable young idiots along with him.


    Continental drift theory has nothing to do with The Big Bang theory.


    There is no theory more stupid than the big bang. Even the global warming scare bows down to its flaming light of dumb.


    Continental drift theory has nothing to do with The Big Bang theory.


    It is easier to be a third-rate theologian than a top-flight scientist …”


    Correct and you prove it every day. You are the most prolifique third-rate theologian to roam the internet.

    and this is the reason for the big bang theory. Our task is to proceed forward with our thinking as though the Big Bang theory has already been defeated.


    The opinion of third-rate theologian are of no interest.
    Continental drift theory has nothing to do with The Big Bang theory.


    The academy can wait around paralysed and it doesn’t matter. The academy can be stuck helpless in its own dogmatic poo poo and drowning in golden showers of science grant whoredom, and it ought be no concern of ours what their current idiotic consensus opinion is.


    The opinion of third-rate theologian are of no interest.


    We want to proceed over the dead body of the big bang and find out how new matter is created and what moves continents.


    The opinion of third-rate theologian are of no interest.

    To find out what moves continents see links provided above

  444. graemebird Says:

    “Producing biodiesel in Australia won’t get third world countries out of poverty, even if it’s slightly cheaper than petroleum based diesel.”

    Who the flying fuck said anything about biodiesel? Lord save us.

    No what happens is this syngas is used to produce steam, hot steam is sent down pipes and just enough oxygen is used also for minimal combustion, and the coal is gassified to more syngas, and then can be further processed to synthetic diesel.

    But in every part of this process it would be better if the uranium were providing energy.

    For example instead of steam we might have some steam and some hydrogen. The hydrogen produced from off-peak electricity. The heat to make the steam to come from the uranium and not from the syngas. The coal pre-heated by uranium heat application…… and so forth. We want to be efficient with our use of the coal and promiscuous with our use of the uranium since we have to assume we have available at least 1000 times the energy from Uranium and Thorium.

  445. Mark Hill Says:

    Christ almighty. Graeme posts a half decent response.

    Except for the biodiesel thing. Any energy produced in a free market would be cheap and sustainable. A wholistic farmer might prefer to use their own cheap biodiesel.

  446. Graeme Bird Says:

    Well of course. Who said otherwise shit for brains? Everywhere I go on this forum we have your idiocy pockmarking the place.

  447. Mark Hill Says:

    “Lord save us”

    It’s like you thought anyone producing biodeisel would be as dumb as inviting you to a dinner party.

  448. Mark Hill Says:

    “graemebird Says:

    December 1, 2008 at 1:04 am

    “That’s why I think Reagan was soft on Gadaffi and your criticism of Obama for threatenbing military action in Pakistan was impractical and too partisan, C.L.”

    Reagan tried to KILL Gadaffi you dummy Mark Hill.”

    Yeah, who is dead and who is alive and how did that work out?

    Not well Graeme, not well.

    Reagan had some good intentions but altogether was too leftist in economic policy and militarily too soft. For all his faults, at least Bush Jnr knew regime change when he saw it.

  449. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme’s lunacy continues:

    “War crimes tribunals when the revolution comes”

    *War Crimes Trials: The Interview To See If Mark Bahnisch Is Criminally Culpable

    It may come to this if the anti-economics fascist stimulus packages continue:

    You little pussy-whipped neoclassicals…….. Let it be on your head.

    You too Sinclair. A little bit in the right direction is just a fucking far site too little and too late.*

    Graeme seems to agree with the ingenuine “secessionists” who believe that our Government should be run out of town and put to death for giving them parking fines etc.

  450. Mark Hill Says:

    Does Graeme believe in show trials and execution of political enemies?

    Discuss.

  451. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme Bird is a communist:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/the-blessed-price-system-underestimates-the-need-for-vertical-development/

    “THE PRICE SYSTEM UNDERESTIMATES THE NEED FOR VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT.”

  452. Mark Hill Says:

    Graeme, your chance to shine against bigotry and ludditry:

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/04/29/richard-pratt-and-the-great-and-the-good/#comment-709628

  453. DC153 Says:

    He’s too busy Mark. Graeme’s now re-fighting the Civil War on the side of slave-owners:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/cold-wind-of-oppression-blows-over-the-united-states/

  454. DC153 Says:

    In defending secession, Bird censors the words of Lincoln:

    Graeme’s view:-

    “So this time around if those in favour of secession have a worthier overall case then the matter will be less complicated. The States had every right to secede. But their reasons for doing so were a mixture of unworthy and legitimate motivations.”

    Lincoln’s view:-

    “I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever — it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.”

    I think Lincoln’s won this particular debate.

  455. DC143 Says:

    More Graeme:

    “You are quoting Lincoln. And I never once said anything contrary to what Lincoln was saying.”

    But he did. It’s there in black and white. He’s so thick. It’s no wonder he looks like this:

  456. DC143 Says:

    Now he’s having a serious outbreak of WAAAAAAA!

  457. The wrath of Khan Says:

    For the love of Allah and his big titted hoochie coochie mammas dancing the dance of the 100 veils, update this site Zed!!!!

  458. Daniel Westaway Says:

    Graeme Bird is a cospiracist nutter and 911 Denier. Entire thread here, post censorship:

    http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/revisiting-a-damaged-crime-scenethe-assumption-is-that-nukes-are-already-planted/

    From a blog in the sovereign state of Louisiana. A place that has to mentally cut loose from the centre, even if it doesn’t secede. Good news about the recent gas finds in that State. Unreadiness is unrighteousness. May the deity of your choice keep you strong, safe and at least psychically independent:

    “Well there would have to be something special about that building. Because buildings don’t fall down simply because of fire. This is unprecedented.

    We already know its a conspiracy Wampus. We just need to know who was involved. The investigation as to who was involved didn’t go past the Arab operators who actually carried it out and Khalid Sheik Muhhummad.

    Do you have a new theory as to it not being important to find out who was involved?

    You see its important on a number of levels. Not the least of which is the need for mass-sackings in the public sector. Since if American spook-town has decided it doesn’t want to link regimes and intelligence services to large-scale terrorist attacks you need to go in there and start sacking people.

    And you need to KEEP ON sacking people, and denying them their cushy retirement benefits, until the people who are still left there suddenly discover a different attitude. Since every terrorist attack of any real size is a conspiracy. And so its a conspiracy you must assume. You must put your conspiracy hat on. You must regard it as a conspiracy and with all the trappings of conspiracy. Each and every terrorist attack involving 2 or more people is a conspiracy. We knew it was a conspiracy already.

    Spooktown, like it or not, is in the conspiracy game. If your spooks, pathetic leftist loons that they are, through some occult tribal mechanism, rule out any implications of a manifest conspiracy up front, then a whole bunch of them need to be sacked for incompetence or even just to reap vengeance on them, or even just to save the taxpayer a whole bunch of cash.

    Now the thing is this. In the case of the world trade centers two MAIN towers, people talk about cantilevers. You guys didn’t mention cantilevers because you don’t want to know.

    But IF this is a valid explanation as to how the buildings COULD have fallen down, still it is not proof that this is the way the buildings DID fall down. That the building had some special design based around cantilevers that made it potentially able to fall this way does not in and of itself alibi any regimes at all. And it doesn’t mean someone didn’t plant some explosives there just to be certain.

    So I am baffled as to why you don’t think this is an important matter. Now I’m well aware that at the time the so-called “TRUTHERS” were an hysterical leftist bunch for the most part. And this is part of the process of how the crime scene gets wrecked for the calm thinking of the general public. But no matter how silly they get, that doesn’t by some retrospective process, or by automatically thinking the opposite to them, tell us anything about what really happened.

    We need to know what happened. We want to find out about what actually happened…… tells us about American Spooktown. What it tells us about the nature of the enemy regimes, about threats in the future, about how policy gave your enemies the courage to make the attack, about what your enemies in foreign intelligence services are able to find out about you more generally.

    Since 9/11 is only the start. And you have to go on the working hypothesis that governments have planted nukes in some of your cities even as we speak. You’d be mad not to have this assumption as a basis from which to go forward.

    There are crazy “Truthers” and there are rational people who share some of the same suspicions.

    Here is Graeme McQueen. Perhaps you can debunk him if you haven’t gone in for the complete idiocy and occult epistemology of the mystical “burden of proof”.

    LINK “

    49 Comments on “Revisiting A Damaged Crime Scene/The Assumption Is That Nukes Are Already Planted.”
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 3:18 am
    What about the missing aircraft at the Pentagon? What say you Mr Bird?

    http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 3:38 am
    I just think thats a crazy conspiracy theories. Crazy conspiracy theories cannot retrospectively make real plots untrue by some trick of time travel or some voodoo of embarrassment by association.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 4:25 am
    Was there any evidence of explosive residue?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 4:37 am
    Why residue particularly?

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 4:44 am
    Simply because if there were explosives used there would have been chemical evidence of their use.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 4:46 am
    Since jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt the metal structures the appearance of molten metal, or metal that had been melted previously implies extra assistance in bringing the building down. Which is not really very surprising. Since a terrorist attack of any magnitude implies regime intelligence service involvement or manipulation in the first place.

    When the Senators come to stab Caesar each brings his own knife. That this happened means there was probably more than one regime involved.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 4:49 am
    “Simply because if there were explosives used there would have been chemical evidence of their use.”

    Not necessarily. They chemical residue might have been perfectly combusted to gasses CO, CO2 and water vapour. After all the culprits did not want to get caught right? So they would not have wanted residue.

    But do you happen to know that they checked for this residue and it was found wanting? You don’t find stuff unless you look for it.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:03 am
    TNT explosions leave a lot of residue, particulary carbon.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:04 am
    Right. So do you know for sure that they tested for this?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:06 am
    Why would you assume TNT specifically? If TNT left a lot of residue an intelligence service would use something else. TNT makes a lot of noise as well. So TNT would not be likely to be the weapon of choice.

    But do you happen to know if they tested for TNT?

    Reply
    The wrath of Khan Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:10 am
    god no ….

    not another truther

    Reply
    The wrath of Khan Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:13 am
    graeme
    pull yourself together

    stop this nonsense and focus on relatively more important things like the Deltoid Dwarf

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:19 am
    Yes, apparently the National Institute for Standards and Technology tested for explosives.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:20 am

    A very long video. Starts off with multiple eyewitness testimony, delivered under the trauma of the moment, of multiple explosions.

    If people who were there claim multiple explosions one ought to take their word for it. Especially if it is said under the heat of the moment.

    This one begins with an explosion that you yourself can hear. Live on tape. No speculation about what the people think they heard needed.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:23 am
    “Yes, apparently the National Institute for Standards and Technology tested for explosives.”

    What did they test for and what did they find? Is the whole thing transparent? Did they just test for TNT and leave it at that? What did they make of the molten metal, or is that just a myth?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:27 am
    Here we have multiple eye-witness testimony, at the heat of the moment, of multiple secondary explosions. Explosions BELOW and above where people were standing. Explosions heard by people on the ground. If you have all these people testifying this as their first response, perhaps we ought to just believe them?

    That would be the normal thing to do. The idea that they are all stupid and they didn’t know what they were talking about, well that to me doesn’t speak of a commitment to serious epistemology.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:34 am
    I haven’t read the whole 43 volume report but investigations were carried out by NIST, New York Police Department, Port Authority Police Department and Fire Department of New York, so I would assume it was fairly rigorous.

    What’s the thing about molten metal?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:40 am
    You ought not assume any such thing.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:58 am
    They’re professional fire investigators. I’m happy with it.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 5:59 am
    In this opening shot you can see what looks like molten metal dripping from the building just before the collapse.

    This video compares thermites actions to the liquid metal we seem to be seeing dripping from the tower.

    Here is one of explosions running UP the building. Not down as one might expect is it were some trick of air pressure:

    Its all there on video really when you think about it. The officer Bar-Brady “nothing to see here folks” story got out there and was locked in prior to this video was able to be collected together and analysed properly. And of course since leftists are crazed, conservatives immediately dismissed the story on the basis that controlled demolition was supposed to implicate Bush and that crowd. Which is utterly ridiculous. The controlled demolition isn’t ridiculous. The evidence is there and its good. But a lot of other associated stories were ridiculous. And the idea that these people just come in from Texas and California were perpetrating this sort of thing was just silly.

    So we see that the real story gets rejected for arbitrary reasons. Controlled demolition doesn’t mean BushHitler did it. It means what we know already. That foreign regimes spend years in New York and Washington scheming things, planting agents, cooking up plans, building networks.

    It just means what large terrorist attacks always mean. Foreign intelligence manipulation or involvement.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 6:03 am

    They’re professional fire investigators. I’m happy with it.”

    Thats because you are a total fuckwit. You don’t have anything. You don’t have any notion at all. You are even guessing about the investigations. You are just assuming stuff because you are a stupid cunt.

    Unless you can see them transparently and openly investigating you have to go with the evidence that you have.

    You did hear the explosion didn’t you you fucking moron?

    Play it again. Sooner or later you might even hear it.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 6:04 am
    Fucking hell man. We get some fucking dumb cunts here, but it still doesn’t seem right.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 6:06 am
    Not really convinced. The ‘molten metal’ could be anything. Apparently NY cops radioed in that they saw the buildings buckling outward several minutes before they collapsed.

    Reply
    Graeme Bird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 6:16 am
    What do you think it was. It was dripping. Perhaps dripping plain fuel?

    I saw someone holding up an example of formerly melted metal. And Graeme McQueen said that molten metal was a feature in all three buildings.

    What would convince you. You being a stupid cunt. Perhaps you ought to listen to that explosion maybe 300 or 400 times.

    Would that help?

    (Fucking dummy).

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 6:34 am
    Could be aluminium from the plane or jet fuel for all anyone knows.

    And I’m not convinced by the ‘explosions’ on the tape as evidence of anything other than random noise associated with massive building collapse. The conclusions reached by NIST stand up well.

    But if there were explosives planted by foreign agencies why would anyone, least of all the NY Fire Dept, bother trying to conceal it?

    Reply
    Graeme Bird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 6:53 am
    Your opinion is irrelevant. Since you are a certified moron.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 7:05 am
    You haven’t answered my question. If there were explosives then why conceal it?

    Reply
    Graeme Bird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 7:15 am
    Whose concealing it? You have to actually investigate the matter. You don’t find what you are not looking for.

    Certainly none of the multiple eyewitnesses who were there, and heard the explosions, who were knocked off their feet by the explosions, who wound up in hospital after the explosions… certainly none of them seem to be concealing the explosions.

    You heard a fucking explosion with your own ears on either side of your stupid absent brain at the start of the fucking tape you stupid fuck. Listen to it again you fucking dummy. You are a moron mate. What more evidence do you want. Eyewitness and on tape you obtuse brain-damaged cunt.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 7:23 am
    The various invetsigating gencies tested for controlled demolition and use of explosives.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 7:31 am
    How do you know that? You are making it up!!!!!

    You are lying.

    Now everyone heard explosions. A fellow testifies that he’s running downstairs from the 23rd floor. He get to the 8th floor and boom he gets blown out of the stairwell into the 8th floor.

    It cannot be the plain because the building hasn’t fallen yet. Since everything was turned to dust the explosions were heard by survivors who got out of the building.

    We got all these witnesses on tape and at ground zero. Its not a speculative matter.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:09 am
    Go and listen to the explosion again.

    Its not a body hitting the ground. Its not a car backfiring. Its not popping rivets you stupid cunt. Its not an exploding transformer. Listen to it again until you fucking get it through your thick head.

    Now the building when it fell was almost free-fall. It hit the ground at 200km/hour. None of the explosions were heard then. Because every cunt that could have heard an explosion then is dead.

    So its not about that. And there were explosions being heard right down the bottom when there ought to have been only fires up the top.

    A girl was talking from her hospital bed about explosions in the basement levels. The plains cannot cause that until the thing is actually falling. But none of the explosions heard were from that time period. Since anyone who wasn’t out by then clearly must be dead.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:14 am
    What sort of a fucking stupid question is THAT you stupid fucking cunt. Both buildings were identical.

    Fuck you are a dumb cunt. What did you ask the question for. The eyewitness didn’t say. Poor cunt was traumatised and didn’t mention it.

    You are a stupid cunt mate. You are actually determined not to sully yourself with the evidence. You didn’t even watch the eyewitness testimony you blockhead.

    Is this fucking Andrew regulator Reynolds. Is this a stupid man dressing up as an even more stupid man.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:28 am
    I’m not claiming it. People who were there claim it. And why would it not collapse from the top.

    You just get more stupid as you go along you dumb cunt.

    You saw the molten metal dripping from the top. If you aren’t refusing to sully yourself with the evidence you’ve seen it. Anyone who can pull this thing off can make it collapse from the top. Which is clearly going to be the easiest place to make it collapse from.

    What sort of dumbass question is that? It must be a lefty mantra. Because you aren’t the first person who has insinuated this. All controlled demolitions work from the top down and clearly this one had to by the very nature of the conspiracy.

    You really are a dumb cunt aren’t you. Next you’ll say that it wasn’t a conspiracy. You’ll claim that the biggest terrorist attack ever wasn’t a conspiracy.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:43 am
    I think you’ll fing your assertion about controlled demolitions starting from the top down to be incorrect. They start from the bottom as evidenced here:

    http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

    There was no evidence of explosive materials found at the crime scene by the investigating bodies.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:44 am
    Well what is your point dummy?

    The explosions were down low. They were witnessed. We see them on video. Whats the matter with you? Stupid cunts disease?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:45 am
    You don’t find evidence unless you look for it.

    And there was evidence. And you’ve heard it you stupid stupid cunt.

    Now whoever did this wasn’t counting on YouTube. You have heard the evidence. So you are just talking shit Reynolds. You are a fucking drooling retard.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:50 am
    Ok here is a longstanding Physics Professor Called Steven Jones.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=steven+jones+911

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 11:44 am
    NIST FAQ August 2006.

    “Was the steal tested for explosives or thermite residues?”

    “Nist did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel”

    Simple as that. Your confidence was entirely misplaced.

    Reply
    Deltoid Dwarf Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 11:59 am
    Bird , you idiot. The buildings fell as a result of the planes crashing.

    WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD BUILDING? NO PLANES CRASHED INTO THAT BUILDING AND IT FELL JUST THE SAME. GOT ANY ANSWERS TO THAT ONE GENIUS?

    AND HOW DOES YOUR REASONING GO? THE PLANES CRASH INTO EACH BUILDING. THEN WHAT? WHY THE TIME DELAY? YOU MAY THINK THE ANSWER IS OBVIOUS BUT LETS SPELL OUT YOUR THEORY IN DETAIL TO SEE IF IT HOLDS UP.

    SINCE CRASHING PLANES INTO THE TOP OF BUILDINGS CANNOT MAKE THEM FALL DOWN BY DIRECT IMPACT THEN WHAT IS IT EXACTLY YOU ARE CLAIMING?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 9:01 pm
    Cambria. Does you faith based approach to knowledge EVER let you down?

    It doesn’t does it Cambria. Stupid Cunt. It never lets you down does it?

    The terrorist plot wasn’t taking it for granted that the planes would make the buildings fall down for the simple reason that they wouldn’t. So the plotters also somehow got thermite explosives into their overnight. Of this we can be sure. Since everyone is attesting to having heard explosions. Thats really the end of that story. There is absolutely no getting around it.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:05 am
    So what is your point? What is your argument? Make your argument in your own words. Go beyond brainless trust-and-parrot.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:06 am
    Is there is POINT to this? It makes no sense. Its rubbish. Its idiocy.

    So what is your point?

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:10 am
    Do you have a POINT to this or not?

    The plain weakening the structure on the 50th floor just for example, cannot weaken the structure of the 15th floor just for example.

    So what was your fucking point you stupid cunt moron brainless shithead.

    There must have been a point to this dummy?

    The plain crashes at the top. It hurts the structure OF THE TOP FLOORS. The fire burns stuff UP HIGH.

    No fire at the top of a building has EVER collapsed a building entire.

    NEVER.

    And how does that make all the explosions disappear?

    You are a fuckwit mate.

    But make your argument in your own words.

    (Fucking stupid cunt).

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:13 am
    NO LYING MAKE YOUR CASE. THE SCIENCE IS IN. THE TERRORIST ATTACK, LIKE MOST TERRORIST ATTACKS INVOLVED ONE OR MORE REGIME INFLUENCES… IN THIS CASE THE SCIENCE PROVES THAT THERE WAS EXTRA CHARGES TO BRING THE BUILDINGS DOWN.

    THATS WHAT THE SCIENCE SEZ. BUT IF YOU HAVE A CONTRARY ARGUMENT MAKE IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS. DON’T HIDE BEHIND JOE TAXEATING CUNT.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:24 am
    Fuck you are a dumb cunt. You don’t make an argument. You just cut and paste some cunt you want to agree with. And he has no case. And you claim that there was no bombs. You know better then the people that heard the bombs. And who put at least one of them on tape, for you to listen to. The people who were knocked over by the bombs. You don’t believe them or the evidence of your own ears. But instead you believe some stupid cunt who made no argument at all. My proof that he made no argument coming via that you cannot rejig his argument in your own words.

    And you are so unscientific that witness testimony on tape is not evidence for you.

    This is what evidence is. Someone who WAS THERE. Who felt the explosions. Who heard the explosions. Who was knocked over by an explosion.

    And to you thats not science. But some fucking taxeater cunt saying something that is obviously wrong.

    Well to you thats science.

    You cannot fake it mate.

    You are a dumb cunt. With the emphasis on DUMB and on CUNT.

    I think you must be Andrew Reynolds.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:28 am
    What is your argument?

    Thats right you don’t have one.

    Make an argument in your own words or I will wipe every fucking post of yours you filthy dishonest cunt cunt.

    GO!!!!!!

    Its not Reynolds. Its fucking fatass Donald Haroldo all over again.

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:33 am
    You have cited Professor Jones as an authority. Do you also believe, as does he, the Jesus Christ visited the Americas?

    Reply
    Daniel Westaway Says:

    May 8, 2009 at 12:43 am
    I might also point out the you have said on numerous occasions that “plains” crashed into the WTC.

    Here is a picture of a plain:

    I think you need to get your facts straight.

    Reply
    graemebird Says:

    May 7, 2009 at 8:00 am
    “there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.”

    WHY ARE YOU QUOTING THEM FOR YOU FUCKING RETARD. YOU’VE JUST SEEN EVIDENCE. YOU’VE JUST HEARD EVIDENCE.

    You are a fucking retard mate.

    All these people heard explosions. You heard an explosion. Thats EVIDENCE you stupid stupid fucking moron. And no it could not be ventriliquised or otherwise caused from the top of the building down. That couldn’t happen. Because once the building collapsed that was the end of everything. So the explosions that people heard. Many of them down low. Were obviously independent of the plains.

    What is the point of quoting cunts who are wrong. We know they are wrong. Because fucking live multiple witnesses and molten metal is EVIDENCE. You are just a fucking dummy mate. Your are a twit. A blockhead.

    Why did you quote them for?

    What possible use is it quoting people who you would know to be wrong if you weren’t retarded. You are the stupidest cunt thats ever shown up here.

  459. graemebird Says:

    We now know that the 9/11 attack consisted of not just the two plains being flown into the building. But that this was also augmented by explosive charges being planted in both towers as well.

    This is a fact beyond dispute. Nothing has ever surfaced to dispute this known and proven fact.

  460. Daniel Westaway Says:

    Graeme, we’ve been through this. All the scientic evidence says otherwise.

    You’d have more credibility if you actually found out what crashed into the WTC. Here is a picture of a plain:

    This is a plane:

  461. danielwestaway Says:

    Oh dear. Now look what’s happened:

    http://danielwestaway.wordpress.com/2009/05/08/hello-world/#comments

  462. danielwestaway Says:

    Graeme, please learn to spell.

  463. The wrath of Khan Says:

    http://danielwestaway.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/graeme-bird-is-a-sex-god-apparently/

  464. Prometheus possum Says:

    Updated:

    http://danielwestaway.wordpress.com/

  465. graemebird Says:

    Daniel Westaway is just Birdlab in one of his many Bird-obsessed homosexual incantations.

  466. blf Says:

    I’ve never heard of this Graeme Bird nutcase before, but it has recently taken to infesting PZ’s Pharyngula blog at the SciBorg:

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/these_guys_are_dangerous_nuts.php

    The inanity of its claims are astounding, albeit I suspect the regulars here (with the exception of Less-Brains-Than-a-Stuffed-Turkey itself) will not be surprised.

  467. Memory Foam Mattress Reviews Says:

    Can I simply say what a aid to find someone who really is aware of what theyre talking about on the internet. You definitely know how one can deliver an issue to mild and make it important. More folks need to read this and perceive this side of the story. I cant imagine youre not more well-liked since you definitely have the gift.

  468. graemebird Says:

    Yeah I stomped the low-life PZ Myers. An anti-Christian bigot posing as a principled atheist. I was right on all points and Myers and his Jew-Town followers never even got off a glancing blow.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: