Thursday, December 29, 2005

Lawyers an exogenous

Lawyers an exogenous variable to the NZ economy
As we end the year in worse financial shape then we began it ,the RB has imposed further constraints to slow inflation and growth.The prognosis for NZ is not good for 2006, even though on a world scale other economies are expected to still have above average growth.

Every commentator and political pundit has been examining the entrails of road kill to prophecise the coming year and forward their own solutions.

It was surprising that in an election year there was no proposition for economic growth,or innovation.The election was solely about pork barrel politics and the largesse to the moving share of the undistributed middle.

Indeed the last 6 -8 years has been about constraint and not about expansion.There is not 1 policy that has been directly attributible to macroeconomic growth.Instead of promoting R&D and innovation constraint has been a prime component of the legislature,with reactive legislation to very dubious studies and research,mostly as carbon copies of EC and UK social and destructive agendas.With electoral margins around the margin of error we have seen the tail wagging the dog and we know what you find under the tail.

As the move from post industrial to service economies there is less optimisation of productivity due to the nature of the industrial and service complexes that remain.

Specialization of the agriculture and scientific R&D areas has lessened due to funding being redirected to feel good projects for the conscience belts of Kelburn and Parnell.

Scientific and industrial research has been reduced at CRI and universities to provide increased finance for Social indoctrination and regulation and the increased funding of Law schools.

Do we need increased funding for law schools?do we need more regulation?more lawyers?In a word NO.

We already have more lawyers then LA.We have 265% more lawyers then the mean of 7 sample countries in the following graphs.A quick sampling of the OECD 2005 figures found that there can be seen to be correlation between poor growth,balance of payments ,and GDP that is related to the exogenous variable of the quantity of lawyers in each country.

If we want to increase our GDP and a number of commentators suggest the emulation of the Celtic Tiger economy of Ireland or that of Finland and the Nordic countries .We should immediately export 50 % of our lawyers.Remember the main purpose of a lawyer is not to follow the law,but to reinvent the interpretation,intent, and purpose by obusification,exaggeration, and ommission.

Ireland and NZ in most areas are comparative with similar education,population etc.Irelands per capita GDP is 50% greater then NZ.The health demographics,education and social parameters are similar the main difference is in NZ there are 8280 lawyers, in Ireland 1479. Finland has 1662.Sweden with twice the population of NZ has 4129.

The emerging economies and the poorer performing OECD countries such as Greece and Portugal have similar ratios of lawyers per 1000 people as NZ .

(image placeholder)

(image placeholder)

NZ 265% more lawyers per 1000 people then the sample mean

(image placeholder)

NZ 30 % below mean of sample population.

Saturday, December 24, 2005

The old men in the olden days,
Who thought and worked in simple ways,
Believed in God and sought His praise.

They looked to God in daily need,
He shone in simple, homely deed;
They prayed to Him to raise their seed.

He sowed on mountain side and weald,
He steered the plough across the field,
He garnered in their harvest yield.

And if He gave them barren sod,
Or smote them with His lightning rod,
They yielded humbly to their God.

They searched the record of their days
To find and mend their evil ways,
Which made the wrath of God to blaze.

And if no evil they could find,
They did not say, "Our God is blind,
""God's will be done," they said, resigned.

So played the old their humble part,
And lived in peace of soul and heart,
Without pretence of Reason's art.

But we have lost their simple creed
Of simple aim and simple need,
Of simple thought and simple deed.

Their creed has crumbled as their dust,
We do not yield their God as just,
Now question holds the place of trust.
Faith blossomed like the Holy Rod,
So grew the old men's faith in God.
We cannot tread the path they trod.

We were not born to anchored creed
That measures good and evil deed -
A guide to those who guidance need.

The God the old men hearkened to
We left,and in our image drew
And fashioned out a God anew.

That iron God, who still unfed,
Sits throned with lips that dribble red
Among the sacrificial dead.

Belching their flames between the bars,
Our fires sweep out like scimitars
Across the Eden of the stars.

And souls are sold and souls are bought,
And souls in hellish tortures wrought
To feed the mighty juggernaut.

The dripping wheels go roaring by
And crush and kill us where we lie
Blaspheming God with our last cry.

Man's cry to man the heaven fills;
We hear not in our marts and mills
The silent voices of the hills

The message of the breathing clay,
Calling us through the night and day
To come away, to come away!

For though old creeds, had we the will
,We cannot, lacking faith, fulfil,
The God above all creed waits still.

For still beyond the city gate,
The fallow fields eternal wait
For us to drive our furrow straight.
The God Who Waits by Leslie Coulson

Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Global warming a cargo cult or Lysenkoism?

Each day we see in the MSM the prediction of major crisis and details of forthcoming climate catastrophes.In Russia and the CIS who interestingly are the major benefactors of Kyoto and emmission trading the scientific and economic R&d spheres regard this as a form of Lysenkoism.
The neutral aspect of the Planetary research institutes provide contrarian financing to research into climate change as a natural phenomena as opposed to anthropogenic.

This balance provides some exceptional research that is not reported in the west.

The assymetrical research by the IPCC and the signatory countries is viewed as Lysenkoism or a cargo cult mentality.

Nikolai Bezroukov writes an excellent dissertion on this subject for the UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme .

"The main point of this paper is that Lysenkoism is not only about intellectual pogrom, destruction of real science by pseudoscience committed in the name of a particular political agenda and more or less openly supported by the ruling party/government officials. It is also (and probably more important) a self-sustainable cult-like system of distortions, omissions, and lies that are designed to support faulty or fraudulent research of the selected "politically correct" pseudo-scientists. In this sense it's closely related to cargocult phenomenon that is better known in the Western hemisphere as well as science distortions that are associated with the military-industrial complex.

The term "Lysenkoism" denote a very dangerous phenomenon: an effort to suppress and/or outlaw a field of research or opinions when they conflict with a dominant political agenda. the main emphasis in Lysenkoism is devoted on the total control of scientific press and media in general and ruthless elimination of even slightest dissent in press. It was named after Academician Trofim Lysenko who pioneered the use a totalitarian state to suppress all research in genetics for almost three decades(1935-1965). This can be considered an incredible achievement in the age of mass newspapers and radio.

All-in-all Lysenkoism was probably the most successful and horrifying reincarnation of middle-age inquisition practice, but instead of Christianity "communist religion" was used as a hammer to crush opposition (communism can be considered as a unique flavor of Christianity; many prominent communist viewed it as a religious idea.).

The Lysenkoism is about creation of cult-style scientific establishment that has been hostile to scientific progress and has nothing to do with the scientific method -- it wanted to prosper by serving as a political force. This role of the cult-style "scientific establishment" in modern science is probably the newest social phenomenon closely connected with Lysenkoism. This system includes three major components:
Control of scientific or techno press.

Control of scientific appointments.
Control of the education system.

Read the entire paper here on the idealism of the cargocult http://www.softpanorama.org/Skeptics/lysenkoism.shtml

Saturday, December 17, 2005

The Antinomies of the left right divide.

Each day we see the reporting and commentary from different perspectives on the same issues that provide discourse on the left /right divide.This is from the editorial direction of the media outlet, or the ideological raison d'etre of the commentator.Thus we end with an asymmetrical diatribe rather then a comprehensive analysis of the underlying issues.

Polarization of issues rather then facts, makes for interesting reading as commentators promote their brands ,sometimes honestly and sometimes not.

Firstly we have Germaine Greer writing in the Guardian on the Australian sand wars.

"Meanwhile, Arab-Christian and Arab-Muslim organisations are desperately trying to impose a curfew on their communities; Lebanese mothers are being asked to use their authority in the family to keep their sons at home next weekend."

..."The latest events might be no more than skirmishes in the usual beach wars. But it does seem that Australian-born Muslim teenagers have finally had enough. Antagonism towards them has been mounting for years, so that even the most presentable middle-class young men of Middle-Eastern appearance find themselves routinely turned away from clubs and effectively ostracised from mainstream youth culture." ....

....One case in particular has become a lightning rod for racial tensions. In 2002, Lebanese Muslim Bilal Skaf was convicted of organising gang rapes of Australian girls on three separate occasions. The crimes were horrible, and had been daily described throughout the tortuous proceedings in salacious and inflammatory detail by the Australian media. In what seems a knee-jerk reaction, Skaf was sentenced to an astonishing 55 years. This was widely denounced by redneck commentators as not enough. With Skaf and his brother in prison, the media dogged the rest of the family. When one of the three verdicts was overturned on a technicality, nine years of Skaf's sentence had to be set aside. The redneck media howled in rage and disbelief, and continue to howl, keeping the issue alive.

What she failed to inform her readers and feminist friends was that the "14 men, all of Lebanese origin, have been convicted or pleaded guilty to gang rapes and sexual assaults involving seven victims over a two-month period,"or that Mr. Skaf "was convicted on 21 counts of aggravated rape, assault and kidnapping." or that Ms. Greer neglects to mention his threat to "attack and bomb the people of Australia" if all Muslim prisoners were not released from Australian jails (a threat delivered in an envelope containing white powder).

Or also that "The victims told of their attackers boasting they were Muslims and that they were targeting 'Aussie pigs' with 'Leb style' rapes."

A strange example for a feminist to use ,especially one so well reported.Maybe she is using "Chopper Read" journalism and not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

On the other side of the divide we have Anna Benson emphatically stating her position on both Michael Moore and in a letter to PETA on her views on Animal rights.

Anna Benson wife and manager of the Mets Player Kris is outspoken and pragmatic on a number of issues

To Michael Moore ...

You are a pariah to our nation…a fat kid that got beat up by the jocks at school, and this has formulated your hatred of America. If I didn’t know any better, I would thing George W. himself went to school with you and kicked the shit out of your pie-hole everyday for being such a candy-ass. If you are so passionate about politics, use some of your blood-making money to make it a better place instead of making movies that only benefit your fat-ass fanny-pack. No one likes to see Hollywood try to engage our minds with their ridiculous and one-sided political rants during award ceremonies. Your “movies” are just a façade for your own political agenda, which, by the way, is fucking warped.

or better....

You are a selfish, pathetic excuse for an American, and you can take your big fat ass over to Iraq and get your pig head cut off and stuck on a pig pole. Then, you can have your equally as fat wife make a documentary about how loudly you squealed while terrorists were cutting through all the blubber and chins to get that 40 pound head off of you. I dare you to go to Iraq and diarrhea all over our soldiers; they would love to strip you naked in the streets and leave you so that the terrorists can pick you up and dispose of you the way terrorists do. If you believe that Iraq and Al-Queda were not together, go over there and see for yourself.

No doubt to that opinion.

A letter to PETA....

Dear PETA,

I am a self-professed animal lover. I have a horse, ten dogs, two cats, and seven fish that all live like royalty here at my house in Atlanta, and, oh my, none of them came from the pound. But I guess this is your first strike against me, right? I might just be damned for my domesticated animals, among other things, but we’ll get to those. First I think that you should ask my animals if they feel like prisoners in my home—ask them if they would rather live in their natural habitats. I’m not so sure if they would want to give up their gourmet meals, luxurious beds, and fancy-ass toys. I don’t think they would voluntarily leave their deluxe dog spa in the basement, a custom built room with play areas, water fountains, and an access door to their own private yard. I’m positive they would miss their weekly spa treatments…you should see the way they all lie down to get their full-body massage / shampoo. I love my dogs so much that I always hug them and kiss them and pamper them like they are part of the family…because they are....

Shall we dance PETA? I wear fur. I wear dead rabbits and dead minks and dead anything that will keep me warm. I love it. I don’t like to be cold, and nothing keeps me warmer than my dead animals. Between my furs and my shoes, I have a whole zoo in my closet. I also love to eat meat. I eat meat twice a day because I need the protein and soy gives me painful gas. Besides, I love a big, really rare steak that’s still mooing on my plate. Moooo—yum. I like fish too. I especially like to catch fish, cut off their little heads and eat them. And I guess Chickens are okay…I liked that movie Chicken Run, but I would ring one of their little necks in about two seconds if I was hungry. But what I’d really like to know is what the fuck is PETA gonna do about it?
I know that you’re not gonna make me a card-carrying member. I guess I’ll throw away my application along with all my PETA hopes and dreams. Actually, I’m glad that you won’t have me because I wouldn’t be caught dead affiliating with you. PETA is on crack, and we all know from those after-school specials that crack kills. Get off the crack PETA. Out of curiosity, I recently went to the official PETA site. Wow. I was absolutely amazed. Your site should be used in the government’s next anti-drug campaign, “Save a Chicken and Just Say No.” I knew that you were radicals, but I didn’t equate you to Al Qaeda extremism until I read through your “philosophy” on “animal rights.” Next thing you know, you guys will start your own political party with a fucking chicken for president. And why not? The democrats keep on having jack-asses run. So, yeah, Chicken for Prez!
Seriously though, I am shocked that PETA compares animal abuse to child abuse and murder. What is wrong with you people? How can you say that the fur trade is comparable to the holocaust? How dare you tell millions of Jews that their attempted extermination and subsequent suffering in the concentration camps is equivalent to the new fall line of boots? And where did you get the idea that animals should have the same rights as mentally challenged people? Maybe we should let animals compete in the Special Olympics as well? You’re suggesting that they have the same mental capabilities, so why not? You are all fucking crazy and idiotic for being so radical and one sided about animals. They have, like, two cells in their little animal heads, but I think natural instinct helps them understand that they are here to eat and be eaten. And I also think that the animal gods understand that, in the big scheme of things, some animals must give up their fur to keep me warm just like some humans must give up their lives because Mr. Bear didn’t like them walking through his woods. Besides, if animals were not killed some, they would take over the earth, multiplying exponentially, and our resources would be jeopardized. Your idiot-based campaigns make me want to go kill some deer, and I have never been hunting in my life.
I have, however, been fishing, and I will probably fish again. And I dare you to give my kid some radical literature if I decide to take him/her fishing in New York; I’ll kick your ass on the spot. In fact, if any of your idiot members ever come anywhere near my kids, I will skin them and eat them for dinner. In other words, I am not afraid of you PETA! I will eat yummy animals; I will wear warm and fuzzy animals; and I will DEFINITLY test on innocent animals for my new cosmetics line if I feel it necessary to protect human consumers. Now, like I said, I am against people who abuse domestic pets or caged circus animals; I will never support abuse at shelters and/or zoos. I also agree that Animals for entertainment is probably not a good idea (just ask Roy Horn). And, really, I won’t kill anything that I don’t eat or wear unless it is pestering me. Even I, the animal murderer, have some limits to what I will or won’t do with animals. I guess one could say that I am an animal connoisseur: I love them, I eat them, and I wear them.
So, I think it’s safe to say that PETA and I have some ideological differences. This is not so aggravating. What is aggravating are PETA’s hypocritical maneuvers, like using Martha Stewart as a spokesperson. Seriously? The bitch cooks fish, chicken and pork. She kills and eats them real good while clomping around the kitchen in her leather clogs. She strolled into court donning different leather pocketbooks, and I know I’ve seen her sport a leather coat or two. But, oh yeah, she won’t wear fur, so that makes her the perfect PETA spokesperson. Are you trying to tell me that the cow that died for Martha’s hot Gucci bag suffered any less than some ratty little minks? I’m sorry PETA, but shouldn’t you condemn Martha for her non-pound pure-bred dogs and the fact that she can’t make any of her “yummy” mincemeat pies without the MEAT! I mean, doesn’t PETA have an all or nothing attitude towards animal rights? Having Martha as a spokesperson when she still eats meat and wears animals is hypocritical.
The only people whom I hate more than hypocrites are idiots…and PETA is at the top of my idiot list next to NAMBLA. So I double hate PETA, and I don’t care if PETA hates me because I hate you first. Don’t hate me yet? Don’t worry; I will make it my mission in life to do all sorts of things to make you hate me back. Then we’ll be even in our hatred, and I’m fine with that, but I dare PETA to mess with me. You are going to have to sit back and watch the next chapter in my life unfold. Like when I build my next house on enough acreage to house lots of animals…lots and lots of cute, and cuddly, and useful animals. They’ll be spoiled too, don’t get me wrong, but I’m not going to let any of them go to waste if they drop over dead. My alpaca will be a great pet, but he’ll also make a great new pair of UGG boots when his time is up. And my lambs will graze to their hearts are content, but they will also make a delicious holiday meal that we will give thanks for. Thank you lamb...thank you from the bottom of my stomach. And we can’t forget about my chickens. They’ll live in a posh chicken house, and I’ll eat all of their yummy chicken babies every morning for breakfast. That’s right; my chef will crack those eggs and watch those chicken babies fry. Hate me yet? Good.
PETA, PETA, PETA…don’t be silly little rabbits…get a real fucking cause like, I don’t know, humans. For real, if you ever want to be taken seriously, stop harassing people and go save a chicken from crossing the road. I’ll even make a deal with you since you like to exterminate so many of your “rescue” animals—get a real cause and you’ll be the first group that I call when it’s slaughtering time at la casa Benson.

Now, off to KFC…
Realistically, Anna “Animal Murderer” Benson

Not understatement there.

Anna is also a poker player and Extreme fighter as well as a mother of three children and this....

Wednesday, December 14, 2005

What is an expert ?.

Someone who studies more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Everyday in the MSM we hear sidebar or proof of concept from the "expert".Normally an academic who comments without providing testable components of their argument,without providing the contrarian arguemnt which they normally would be expected to disprove in their arguments.

This is especially in the case of science or economics where the viewpoint is normally from a personal or fiscal perspective and where the msm does not understand the factual discourse.

"No quantity of experiments can ever prove me right,said Albert Eienstein but one experiment can prove me wrong"

In his famous analogy Karl Popper said" if all swan are white ,we should not be looking for great quantities of white swan,we should instead look for a single black one"

Marginal revolution has a review of an exciting book by Philip Tetlock Expert Political Judgement.

...no matter how unequivocal the evidence that experts cannot outpredict chimps or extrapolation algorithms, we should expect business to unfold as usual: pundits will continue to warn us on talk shows and op-ed pages of what will happen unless we dutifully follow their policy prescriptions. We -- the consumers of expert pronouncements -- are in thrall to experts for the same reasons that our ancestors submitted to shamans and oracles: our uncontrollable need to believe in a controllable world and our flawed understanding of the laws of chance. We lack the willpower and good sense to resist the snake oil products on offer. Who wants to believe that, on the big questions, we could do as well tossing a coin as by consulting accredited experts?

Tetlock draws on both Data from 82361 observations to provide a comparison by Tolstoys foxes and hedgehogs.

The New Yorker also provides a good critque of the book with the following comments.

Tetlock got a statistical handle on his task by putting most of the forecasting questions into a “three possible futures” form. The respondents were asked to rate the probability of three alternative outcomes: the persistence of the status quo, more of something (political freedom, economic growth), or less of something (repression, recession). And he measured his experts on two dimensions: how good they were at guessing probabilities (did all the things they said had an x per cent chance of happening happen x per cent of the time?), and how accurate they were at predicting specific outcomes. The results were unimpressive. On the first scale, the experts performed worse than they would have if they had simply assigned an equal probability to all three outcomes—if they had given each possible future a thirty-three-per-cent chance of occurring. Human beings who spend their lives studying the state of the world, in other words, are poorer forecasters than dart-throwing monkeys, who would have distributed their picks evenly over the three choices.


Sunday, December 11, 2005

This weekend we had the completion of the COP/MOP UNCCC Conference on climate change.The reporting and commentary is predictable in that the MSM and the environmental lobbyisits are citing that there is an extension of Kyoto and that there are effective emission reductions to be realised.

Fitzsimons says "The UN's climate change summit in Montreal finished yesterday with all countries, including the US, signing up to an agreement to continue a unified global approach to tackling the issue.
"The Kyoto Protocol is still alive and is only going to get stronger from here on in," Ms Fitzsimons says.
"Even the United States has now recognised that the damage that climate change will cause will be so great that humanity must take collective action. No nation state is now trying to pretend it isn't happening."

Now it is easy to be confused as the reporting in the MSM is restricted by both the limited intellect of the reporters and those reading and commenting on it.

This is easily understandable as I think that there may be only 5 people on the planet who can understand the gobblydook technospeak that the EC and UN beaureucracy has prescribed in the agenda and working parties.

First let us look at some of the press releases and decisions.

Modalities, rules and guidelines for emissions trading
under Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol1

(f) It submits the supplementary information on assigned amount in accordance with
Article 7, paragraph 1, and the requirements in the guidelines decided thereunder and makes any additions
to, and subtractions from, assigned amount pursuant to Article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8, including for the
activities under Article 3, paragraphs 3 and 4, in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 4, and the
requirements in the guidelines decided thereunder.
3. A Party included in Annex I with a commitment inscribed in Annex B shall be considered:

(a) To meet the eligibility requirements referred to in paragraph 2 above after 16 months
have elapsed since the submission of its report to facilitate the calculation of its assigned amount pursuant
to Article 3, paragraphs 7 and 8, and to demonstrate its capacity to account for its emissions and assigned
amount, in accordance with the modalities adopted for the accounting of assigned amount under Article 7,
paragraph 4, unless the enforcement branch of the Compliance Committee finds in accordance with
decision 24/CP.7 that the Party does not meet these requirements, or, at an earlier date, if the enforcement
branch of the Compliance Committee has decided that it is not proceeding with any questions of
implementation relating to these requirements indicated in reports of the expert review teams under
Article 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, and has transmitted this information to the secretariat;
(b) To continue to meet the eligibility requirements referred to in paragraph 2 above

Well now that is clearer and understandable lets look at the decision from CP11 and see where the longterm solutions are so prescribed.

Decision -/CP.11
Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by
enhancing implementation of the Convention
The Conference of the Parties,
Recalling the ultimate objective, principles and commitments of the Convention, as set out in its
Articles 2, 3 and 4,

Recognizing that climate change is a serious challenge that has the potential to affect every part
of the globe,

Deeply concerned that all countries, particularly developing countries, face an increased risk of
the negative impacts of climate change,

Reaffirming that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and
overriding priorities of developing country Parties,

Recognizing that the full implementation of the commitments of Parties included in Annex I to
the Convention will provide positive and innovative opportunities for developing countries to take more
action to address climate change,

Further recognizing that there is a diversity of approaches to address climate change,
Acknowledging that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation

and participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with the principles
of the Convention,
Recognizing the essential role of technology in addressing climate change and the urgent need to
initiate and enhance technology development and transfer for meaningful and effective actions to
implement Article 4, paragraph 5, of the Convention,
Recalling decision 4/CP.7, paragraph 4, which urges developed country Parties to provide
technical and financial assistance, as appropriate, through existing bilateral and multilateral cooperative
programmes to support the efforts of the Parties to enhance the implementation of Article 4, paragraph 5,
of the Convention,
1. Resolves to engage in a dialogue, without prejudice to any future negotiations,
commitments, process, framework or mandate under the Convention, to exchange experiences and
analyse strategic approaches for long-term cooperative action to address climate change that includes,
inter alia, the following areas:
(a) Advancing development goals in a sustainable way
(b) Addressing action on adaptation
(c) Realizing the full potential of technology
(d) Realizing the full potential of market-based opportunities;

2. Further resolves that the dialogue will take the form of an open and non-binding
exchange of views, information and ideas in support of enhanced implementation of the Convention, and
will not open any negotiations leading to new commitments;
3. Agrees that the dialogue will be informed by the best available scientific information and
assessment on climate change and its impacts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as
well as other relevant scientific, technical, social and economic information;
4. Further agrees that the dialogue should enable Parties to continue to develop effective
and appropriate national and international responses to climate change, and serve as a forum for
identifying actions to promote research, development, and deployment of, as well as investment in,
cleaner technologies and infrastructure;
5. Further agrees that the dialogue should identify approaches which would support, and
provide the enabling conditions for, actions put forward voluntarily by developing countries that promote
local sustainable development and mitigate climate change in a manner appropriate to national
circumstances, including concrete actions to enable countries, in particular developing countries, to
manage and adapt to climate change;
6. Further agrees that the dialogue should explore ways and means to promote access by
developing countries to cleaner and climate-friendly technologies and technologies for adaptation
through the creation of enabling environments, concrete actions and programmes;
7. Decides that:
(a) The dialogue will be conducted under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties and
will take place in up to four workshops, where possible pre-sessional workshops, open to
all Parties, to be organized by the secretariat, subject to the availability of resources;
(b) The dialogue will be facilitated by two co-facilitators, one from a Party included in
Annex I to the Convention and one from a Party not included in Annex I to the
Convention, who will be selected by each group, respectively;
(c) The two co-facilitators will report on the dialogue and on the information and diversity
of views presented by Parties to the twelfth (November 2006) and thirteenth
(December 2007) sessions of the Conference of the Parties;
8. Invites Parties to submit to the secretariat, no later than 15 April 2006, their initial views
on the issues to be discussed in this dialogue and requests the secretariat to make these submissions
available to the first workshop;
9. Notes that the organization of the discussions will require additional resources to enable
the participation of delegates from eligible Parties and to enable the secretariat to provide the necessary
support for the dialogue;
10. Encourages Parties to provide additional contributions to the Trust Fund for
Participation in the UNFCCC Process and additional supplementary funds for the work of the secretariat
to support this dialogue with the understanding that the dialogue will be conducted in the most
cost-effective way.

Yes and agreement to discuss and talk and confuse.A success claims the Environmentalists and the EC beaureaucracy no suggests others the changes are in afforestation and technology transfer and new technology and NUCLEAR FUSION.Yes there is to be enhanced funding of the ITER

Joint Press Release
Jeju, Korea, 6th December 2005

Delegations from China, European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America gathered on Jeju Island, Korea, on 6th December 2005, to complete their negotiations on an Agreement on the joint implementation of the ITER international fusion energy project.


ITER is the experimental step between today’s studies of plasma physics and tomorrow's electricity-producing fusion power plants.
It is based around a hydrogen plasma torus operating at over 100 million °C, and will produce 500 MW of fusion power.
It is an international project involving The People's Republic of China, the European Union and Switzerland (represented by Euratom), Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America, under the auspices of the IAEA.
It is technically ready to start construction and the first plasma operation is expected in 2016.

Yes the old double bluff they could not see the carbon for the trees,

The greens and environmentalists have been saying Kyoto is the only game in town.

It is not the 6 country agreement ,the G8 initiative are also ,when people play big boys games remember hey use big boys rules!

Web Counters