90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ: NZ$ hits 78 USc after Fed sets sail with QE II plan to print US$600 bln by mid 2011

Who actually owns the Federal Reserve? Wikipedia says it is privately owned but does not say by whom. 

78 today.....88 in 12 months.....somewhere in the months to come the exporters will demand payment in Yuan or Yen. This US$ farce must stop. Part of the problem is the RBNZ brown nosing the Fed at every chance. The only imports that require US dollars are oil based. Key needs to speed up the change over to an electric transport system..reduce the need for oil...and stop buggerising around.

This looks interesting:

“If I were BoJ, I would set a trap for all the currency speculators in the world. I would intervene in the currency market, appearing unsuccessfully, to lure speculators to commit more and more funds. I would get into a spit fight with the US Treasury and appear scared from time to time, egging the speculators on. I would quietly sell ¥10 trillion per day, not completely offsetting the speculative inflow and allowing dollar-yen to drop slowly with rising trading volume. I would play the game for two months and let dollar yen drop to low 60s until ¥500 trillion of speculative funds are sunk at an average price of 75. I would then announce unlimited supply of yen at 120. The speculators would suffer losses of ¥ 312 trillion instantaneously. They have to unwind their positions to stop losses. Just in case that they don’t unwind, I would announce the price would be raised to 130 one month later. I would use half of the profit to retire 16% of the national debt and donate the other half to Melinda and Bill Gates Foundation for helping Africa. I would refloat the currency, after all the speculative positions have been closed, and impose 0.1% Tobin tax on yen currency trading to stop future speculation.”

Andy Xie, 12th October, 2010, in China Finance

 

http://www.arpllp.com/core_files/The_Absolute_Return_Letter_1110.pdf

What about a Tobin Tax on NZD trading?

Wally says: Key needs to speed up the change over to an electric transport system..reduce the need for oil...and stop buggerising around

..... imported, partly or entierly manufactured here in NZ is the essential question ? Most politicians Included the new Auckland City Council are saying we do need more public transport,  better engergy supply, etc. but where does it come from ?

All this new hot money available would mean NZ banks can start lending at cheaper rates soon?

worth a read:

http://transitionvoice.com/2010/11/deflated-economy-in-a-talk-with-nico…

And the cake came out of the oven with 6.4% on it...now would that be from all the jobs created in the surge of growth we haven't had!...or the state sector bloating WINZ to deal with the 6.9% which in itself was just a cake to keep the punters happy...or did the unemployed receive travel subsidies to jump the Tasman. That's your free cooking lesson for the quarter folks. Tune in again in three months for another taste.

Any idiot can see the 6.9% to 6.4% change is a fraud.

Following on from the Harold ‘Hal’ Lewis Emeritus Prof of Physics Resignation from American Physical Society for what he described as the “global warming scam”, there are now a number of very intelligent and informative articles from Judith Curry.

Just to avoid the usual ad hom attacks, this is who she is:

============

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee.[1]

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

============

So in anticipation of ad hom attacks:

1. "Where are the peer-reviewed papers?" - Over 140.

2. "Paid by big oil" - I don't think so.

3. "She's old and out of touch" - ahhh, nope.

4. "She's not a climatologist" - ahhh, yes she is.

5. "She's a denier" - of what? Can you find something she is "denying"?

6. "She's female" - ahh, yes she is. Maybe even alarmists won't stoop to that one!

This is the 1st article from Judith Curry that caught my attention. I highly recommend spending the time to read it all:

Heresy and the creation of monsters

October 25, 2010

by Judith Curry

http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3758

=============

The title of the article itself is rather astonishing. The Wikipedia defines heresy as: “Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma.” The definition of dogma is “Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.” Use of the word “heretic” by Lemonick implies general acceptance by the “insiders” of the IPCC as dogma. If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic. The story should not be about me, but about how and why the IPCC became dogma.

=============

I also found this one very good:

Decision making under climate uncertainty: Part I by Judith Curry

http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3778

=============

Conclusions



The current decision making framework based on the UNFCCC/IPCC has led to a situation where we are between a rock and hard place in terms of decision making. The strategy (primarily model based) has provided some increased understanding and a scenario with about 3C sensitivity that is unlikely to budge much with the current modeling framework. A great deal of uncertainty exists, and emissions target policies based on such uncertain model simulations are not robust policies.



It seems that we have reached the point of diminishing returns for the science/decision making strategy reflected by the UNFCCC/IPCC. Its time to consider some new decision making frameworks and new scientific ideas. In Part II, we will explore some robust decision making strategies that consider Weitzman’s “fat tails” and ponder the kinds of scientific information needed to support such strategies.

============

It would be good to see the MSM, such as Radio New Zealand National, cover climate science properly, in an unbiased intelligent way, in contrast to its recent Flannery/Suzuki chats.

Judith Curry would be a very good place to start.

On the previous thread on interest.co.nz:



90 seconds at 9 am with BNZ: Weak US jobs signal QEII; Currency wars rage; SCF puts Mr Apple on block

http://www.interest.co.nz/news/90-seconds-9-am-bnz-weak-us-jobs-signal-…



the first reply to my post about Harold 'Hal' Lewis's Resignation letter was this from steven:



=====

by steven | 11 Oct 10, 10:14am



Reduced to spamming are we?



Excellent, the anti-agw loons are side lined as the crack pots they are....



regards

=====



Then later powerdownkiwi replied with this:



=====

by powerdownkiwi | 11 Oct 10, 2:02pm



He seems to come out of the woodwork on one subject, and one only. Bit like HughP.



Those cases always make me wonder, just quietly, where their funding comes from.



Those 'leaked emails' were put to bed, although the media seemed to take less interest in that part of it.



Maybe he's just another Inwood?

=====



To which steven replied with:



=====

by steven | 11 Oct 10, 2:24pm



Indeed posting a piece totally out of context for the 90 at 9....no where lese to post that would get read I suppose.



Funding.....there would seem to be a good trail of dollars surrounding the deniers...pretty dirty money.



I read once that when someone insults you and you dont understand [part of] it...throw it back as usually they throw things at you that they are themselves are hurt by so think you will be....I suspect thats the case here so the money trail should be interesting to uncover...  If its not money then its extremist  politics......



The media were looking for their usual scandal / sound bite, but usually want the truth....nice and juicy but substantiable truth.  When the truth was obvious from looking at the emails themselves they lost interest, indeed I think the entire episode did the deniers more damage than good they turned the incident into one huge farce with them as lead actors.



regards

=====



This how Bernard Hickey viewed it:



=====

by Bernard Hickey | 13 Oct 10, 7:49am



This is a generally interesting (and mostly civil) debate that we haven't had on this site recently.



I appreciate people's attempts to keep it civil.

A quick reminder to people to not be abusive and to back up their arguments with links to other sources/authorities.



cheers



Bernard

=====



My reading of that is that my post, and the subsequent responses were welcome.



Today I posted about Judith Curry.

The first response was from powerdownkiwi:



=====

by powerdownkiwi | 04 Nov 10, 12:25pm New



Bernard - do you have a filter function for these paid one-topic hucksters?

=====



My response to that is as follows:



Mahatma Gandhi said "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."



It appears I have made considerable progress :)



This sort of behaviour is exactly what Judith Curry has been writing about. The dogma that has overtaken science in the climate area.



Now to the exact post. I assume, I think it's a fair assumption, that powerdownkiwi is referring to me. In which case:



"paid" - paid by whom for what? I am not paid by anyone for anything remotely connected to climate science.



"one-topic" - if you visit my website you will see I cover a wide variety of subjects; economics, banking, peak oil, technology, science, the recent earthquake here etc etc. I admit I do tend to concentrate on economics, and the "follow the money" clue that the AGW climategate saga has revealed - how interconnected AGW and the current financial situation is. Carbon credits are the attempted replacement in my view of the collapsed derivatives market. An attempt to continue inflating the currencies.



"hucksters" - thank you, you make my case about dogma for me.



I little more from Judith Curry:



======

If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully. I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus. You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged. But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.



Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.



What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

========

Cheers Steve

We have a history of denying fact if it is inconvenient, and particularly if it undermines currently-held dogma.

Classics are Gallileo, Magellan (actually his crew*) Darwin (still) Malthus, Meadows and Hubbert. Closer to home, Lloyd Geering.

All knocking comes from the incumbent power-wielders, and it's not hard to see why - you don't change a system you see yourself as a 'winner' in. The Confederate States come to mind.

The incumbents, of course,are prepared to pour large percentages of their current winnings, into the fray (think Shirtcliffe).

The warners of change, the scientists, the discoverers, and the suffragette types, have to do it alone at first, always outnumbered (until they tip past 50%) and always unpopularly with the incumbent press.

Hunter Thompson put it better: "History is hard to know, because of all the hired bullshit.

For 'history' read: everything.

* the church donged them for celebrating the Sabbath a day out - nobody had thought about the date-line, because the world wasn't round....

Powerdownkiwi

We have a history of denying fact if it is inconvenient, and particularly if it undermines currently-held dogma.

Evidently you are in denial of your treatment of Steve Netwriter.  You behaved like a thug and now you justify it.

so sailing around the the south pacific in someone else,s yacht staring at the clouds confirms your views does it murray?--one of your boys is a sparkie--right? how does that fit in the powerdown equation

I'm A Denier, another great video/song from M4GW

http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3802



Enjoy :)



 

This is what Dr Judith Curry says in her profile article:

================

The question then naturally arises. What is Judith Curry sure about?

She pauses before giving an answer in three parts.

“Climate always changes,” she says.

“Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”

And lastly, “Whether in the coming century greenhouse gas will dominate natural variability remains to be seen.”

Asked what she is certain of, her most definitive answer is uncertainty itself.

===============

http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/3805

I agree with all of those statements.