CIS and John Humphreys caught red handed, again, lying
This time, the lie kills their lame excuses for their actions.
ANTI-TAX CANDIDATE CALLS FOR CARBON TAX
Ah, what was it you were saying Humphreys? Wait, there is more. Recall that Humphreys wrote:
In his report on the viability of nuclear power, Ziggy Switkowski suggested that a tax of A$15-$40 per tonne would be needed to make nuclear competitive with coal.
Having mentioned Hugh Morgan, common denominator between Melbourne’s right wing establishment and the IPA, HR Nicholls Society, and the CIS, and his mate Ron Walker, who else stands to gain a fortune from the deliberate destruction of the coal based power companies, in order to set up nuclear? It is clear Yates does. What about Ziggy, or Humphrey? Who is Greg Lindsay sheilding?
Nuclear is the only means of replacing coal. Notice, the reason why the Japaneses companies want to invest in coal based stations, but cannot thanks to the creeps in their Govt. imposing carbon taxes, is because it has a tremendous advanatge over nuclear. Am I mistaken in saying classical liberal economists would say Australia has an absolute an absolute advantage coal? I don’t believe so.
In other words, nuclear is not economically efficient. It reqires the deliberate, coerced destruction of the coal companies to contemplate them, and massive subsidies to prop them up.
What does Humphreys and his party of Libertines plan to ram down the backs of Australians:
ANTI-TAX CANDIDATE CALLS FOR CARBON TAX
“Climate change policy is going in the wrong direction. If we need to control carbon, the best solution is a carbon tax,” claimed John Humphreys, a Queensland Senate candidate for the Liberty and Democracy Party (LDP).
The free-market Centre for Independent Studies (CIS) today launched a new Policy Monograph by Humphreys called “Exploring a Carbon Tax for Australia”.
That is their position as their own site makes plain:
Moreover, this is a conflict of interest. Humphreys has not declared this, except in that press release. I was unaware of it until late today. Humphreys has mislead many readers.
Humphreys, and the CIS have been deliberately deceiving the public. It’s worse, in view of the above, it is deliberate lying to the public. They did publish a propaganda paper, to cover for Rudd, and the interests who stand to make billions out of the immiseration of millions of Australians.
It’s a deception they have conducted while all this time defaming Jackson. We now see why. Lindsay, Humphreys, the CIS, they had to attempt to deflect scrutiny from what they are involved in, and what they are involved in is monstrous.
Don’t forget, readers, what Humphreys and the CIS and Lindsay fully support is also a real totalitarian measure. They are not liberals. They do not defend classical liberalism. They are treacherous liars, who are wrecking the liberal cause and the Liberal Party. They are doing this in tandem with the rest of the rightwing thugs and scumbags who betray genuine liberal principles, smear genuine liberals, and ally themsleves instead with treacherous leftists.
Three items today, readers, and I am just warming up for the week. Needless to say, I pick up the above interesting hot flash tomorrow. Humphreys is the black knight in Monty Python’s Holy Grail movie.
Graeme Bird wrote:
I think thats a bit of a myth Doug. A sort of leftist two-step. These lefties tell us that coal is no good because it will destroy the planet. Then they tell us that nuclear is no good because coal is cheaper. They do this two-step to screw us over entirely.
But the thing is these are complements and not competitors in my view. I think we ought to have nuclear electricity and turn the coal into liquified-coal to put in our diesel engines.
When these fellows tell us that nuclear is expensive it might be on the basis of high interest rates. Or it could be they are thinking light-water-reactors that create all this waste problem since they use less than 1% of the available fuel.
But fast-breeder reactors use up all the fuel leaving a small amount of lead-like inert waste.
So when these guys are doing their two-step and claiming that nuclear is expensive they will be thinking light-water, waste disposal, lefty litigation and so forth.
We are in a power of trouble that the environmentalists have dropped us into. And we really need to scramble for both these sources. No carbon tax can be tolerated.
In the long run costs will push coal-electricity higher than nuclear since we ought to see our nuclear resources as being perhaps 1000 times as plentiful as the coal.
We are well-placed to have surplus nuclear energy and to export our coal as liquid fuels and be the new Middle East of this world. Awesome energy producers that will make people forget the Saudis ever lived.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 12:43 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
… Forget the Saudis ever lived. Desert bandit-spawn that they obviously were. They will not be missed but we have to get started.
I must say I’ve always had a soft spot for the Costello lad. Thought he had good instincts about some things and was happy he managed to isolate our superannuation from the generalised orgy of stealing.
Still I can see you are a Liberal Party insider and I’ll not try and get into any of this factional argy-bargy.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 12:48 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
lol — can anybody actually spot the “lie”?
The only lie I can see is d’s claim that I have lied.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 2:38 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
Just stop your bullshit Humphreys and get busy with absorbing my arguments. And Gerry’s too by the way.
Remember that you are going to have to google such things as “Austrian Capital Theory” “The structure of production” “The lengthening of the structure of production” “productivie expenditure” and “Gross Expenditure”.
You simply have to go and learn stuff before you UNDERSTAND stuff. I’m sorry you had to hear it from me.
Get to reading. And while you are at it try and get those ignorant fools Farrell and Gruen to reading as well.
They are just an embarrassment.
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 5:57 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
yeah yeah… but where is the lie?
Posted on 12-Mar-08 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
where’s the lie boys? come on… don’t go all shy now.
Posted on 13-Mar-08 at 8:57 pm | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
I’m not focused on that stuff. I’m just waiting for you to address my unassailable arguments.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 2:36 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
lol — if they’re unassailable, then I guess I’ve got no chance…
But that’s not good enough. This blog post is about how I’m a liar. But there is no lie. You’re now associated with this “d” chap thanks to your AGW love-in… so either defend him or condem him.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 4:17 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
No not good enough. You are certainly dishonest and evasive. Relentlessly evading my arguments and carrying on as if they have not been made.
Now get on with it.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 6:47 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
where is the lie graham? either admit there wasn’t a lie and that “d” is a fraud… or show me the lie.
if you’re going to be associated with character attacks against me — you’d better back them up.
Posted on 14-Mar-08 at 3:56 pm | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
Look. You are an evasive bullshit-artist. We know that already. I’m not forensically tracking down what Douglas was talking about only to find out you might have some literalist or legalistic “OUT”.
What I’m interested in is you finally engaging these arguments that you have been running away from for two years now.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 1:19 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
So you’re either too dumb or too scared to find the lie. Either that, or there is no lie. You’re pathetic.
You cannot find one factual or logical error that I’ve ever made on this issue. Nor can you find the “lie” that you bum-buddy doug claims. You’re a joke.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 8:43 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
I’m not interested in any of your particular methods of dodging the debate or any of your lies. You are lying all the time. You just lied on the other thread and claimed that I had admitted your monograph was the best proposal in Australia when I’ve consistently pointed out what a crap proposal it is.
Now get on with addressing the points I’ve made.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:27 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
so you can’t find any actual lies.
ok — thanks for admitting defeat.
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
I’ve busted you lying many times man. I’m not interested in your evasive actions.
Its time you engaged the arguments and stopped trying to dilute these threads.
Lets try this for starters:
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 9:39 am | Permalink
John Humphreys wrote:
name a lie churkey
you can’t
if you again refuse to name a lie, I will accept that as an admission that you can’t… and therefore you’re wrong
Posted on 15-Mar-08 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Graeme Bird wrote:
You lied about me supporting a cap and trade. Thats just one and a blatant one at that. Since you know I think the entire movement is a fraud.
Now are you done yet?
I’ve busted you lying so are you done yet?
Time for you to read up on your economics.
Posted on 16-Mar-08 at 5:24 pm | Permalink
unnikuttan wrote:
you do not talk about the negative sides of liberalism and capitalism.
Posted on 25-May-08 at 2:48 am | Permalink