More misdirection and a bit of insult added into the mix.

Please continue.

You're too stultifying ill-informed.

Seem to have comprehension problems too.

You mean like the claim that Kyoto would reduce NZ's GDP by 18%, which then turned out to be 0.18%? Oops -- I didn't make that claim.

You mean like mistaking figures of speech as literal claims? Oops -- I didn't make that mistake.

Nah, you made this one : "An extreme example is the Kyoto treaty which is little more than a scheme to bankrupt the US. Thank God the US rejected it.", oops.



More like pretending something was a figure of speech, oops.

Here--

""It's worth noting that it's not just the Japanese (or the Americans) who now have serious reservations about Kyoto. As my colleagues Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon recently pointed out, Kyoto skepticism is sweeping the globe like Pokemon. Politicians and business leaders in Canada, Germany, and New Zealand have taken measure of the costs involved and are now much less enthusiastic about the treaty. Why? To give just one example, New Zealand's Institute of Economic Research recently estimated that by 2016, the Kiwi GDP would be 18% lower than it would have been without the Kyoto emission cuts.""

From here

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...lz010302.shtml

and here--

""New Zealand's prime minister has called incorporating carbon sinks into the total emissions calculus a political non-starter, despite the country's vast forests and green spaces. But without factoring those in, the economic impact of Kyoto will be devastating to the Kiwis. An economic assessment produced by the New Zealand`s Institute of Economic Research in December found that, in 15 years, New Zealand`s GDP would be 18% lower than it would have been without the Kyoto emission cuts. This new report also cautioned that "New Zealand should be extremely cautious about enforcing any emission abatement on its domestic economy in the absence of a global regime."""

From here--
http://www2.techcentralstation.com/1...D=1051-010202B

You can find that number here as well---New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, The Economic Effects of Greenhouse Gas Emission Policies: A Quantitative Evaluation, November 2001, p xiv.

And another online here--

""These results contrast with work by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER). It estimates New Zealand's long-term trend rate of growth would be reduced by about 1 percent per annum to about 1.5 percent per annum. GDP would be 18 percent lower in 15 years' time compared with what it would otherwise have been.""

From here--

http://www.nzbr.org.nz/documents/sub...ission.doc.htm

Now shut up and fess up that you are wrong.

Notice-- you disputed a claim I made-- which at the time when you did it earlier I dismissed because we were discussing your claim and you were trying to misdirect the argument toward me and my claims. Now that we are certain your claim is incorrect and that argument is over((though you would still not admit to it we all know whats up)) I backed up my claim with evidence.

That is the way it is done

Thank you.

You programming needs to be updated.

First of all, all your cites point to the same study, and you have failed to provide a link that that ACTUAL study, so we could all see if its numbers are valid, its methodology, etc. We're supposed to take YOUR word for it?

When I cited my study, I have a direct link.

Now we note that your link directly above provides both sets of numbers and says they conflict. So you failed to read your own link! It doesn't say your numbers are correct; it says your numbers conflict with other numbers. The NZIER report is one model, the port I cited is another. The difference is I actually presented the study so you could decide for yourself. You merely linked to other people who referred to the study, but failed to link to the actual study.

And to once again refer to the actual substance -- the value of Kyoto -- I saw this form your own techcentralstattion link:

"Under this new world order of international climate diplomacy, powerful emitters like China -- which will be out-emitting the United States in a few years -- and India are exempt from the current responsibility of emission cuts. Meanwhile, Russia is ramping up its petroleum recovery, possibly doubling it to 12 million barrels per day, while it ranks third in carbon dioxide emissions. Yet Kyoto requires that Russia need not cut below its 1990 emission levels."

...exactly as I said.

Now shut up and fess up that you are wrong.

i suppose you missed this eh?? In your blind zeal to get back at me for proving you wrong??

Sorry but it is not online. You will have to go to a Library or pay for membership at thier site NZIER. If you pay for membership you will be able to peruse the paper. I have given you the Institute name, the name of the document, and the exact page the information is on. I am sorry that I do not have the time to educate you any further than that.

Now on to your next argument. I never argued the substance of Kyoto. beyond to say that its intentions were good but in practice it failed. As such I would have to say that I agree with you that it is too economically harsh to put into effect. But it was never a "CONSPIRACY" to "BANKRUPT" the United States. That was your own wild and baseless claim of which I have so far proven both as being wrong.

You are so hardheaded that it is almost funny in a way.

Except as we see, you didn't back up your claim with direct evidence, merely parrotted articles where they referred to a study. Meanwhile I link to the actual report. So I link to actual data while you incompetently parrot.

Yes, that IS the way things are done here, it seems.

Thank you.

Between the ABARE report you linked and The New Zealand Institute Of Economic Research I will accept New Zealands own findings. Thank you. I might add that most everyone else accepts New Zealands NZIER Report over ABARE as well.

You I would think would do so as well if it were not for your selfless zeal to prove me wrong
The NZIER Report backs up your claim that the Kyoto Treaty was a bad idea.

But I suppose you would rather I was wrong than use proper information.

So we agree that Kyoto was not a good idea. We agree that it would have harmed many countries financially. The only thing we disagree on is the fact that you were wrong when you made your primary claim. Though your disagreement is erronious. You still have a chance to correct that though.

OUCH!! Ohhh that hurt so badlike. Wow your insults are so well thought out. Are these spurious in nature or do you have footnotes you use??

I used the links to show that others also use the NZIER Report over your ABARE report. Just because the ABARE report is available online and your Google search found it does not mean it is more correct little one.

Go pay for Membership in NZIER and check it out. Or you could go ask your local library for a copy if they have it.

Missed what? That IS the one and only study you have to offer.

In other words, you have no first hand clue. How can you educate me when you don't know yourself? You're simply parrotting what others have written.

In short, I provide first level data, you don't. Our claims are thus not equal after all. You can't point to the actual contents of a study. Your claim is rejected out of hand.

That's right -- you're happy to bicker (wrongly) about semantics and throw childish temper tantrums when your laughable "everything must be literal always" volley is sent back over the net contemptuously -- but you can't address the substance.

So go away and don't waste my time until you ARE ready to address the substance.

HAhaha you assume I have not read the report.

I suppose that is your right.

Have fun with that.

People with an agenda, like you, will often grab the set of numbers more congenial to their case. That means nothing without actual investigation into the numbers themselves. Because A, B, and C use one set of numbers means exactly nothing until you know WHY they selected those numbers. You don't. You haven't read the study. Your opinion is therefore worthless.

I'd bet money on it.

Why would someone like you with no technical abilities at all pay for a random study?

Ok, I'll play along -- what was the study methodology? Limiting assumptions? Etc?

More baseless insults.