One cannot but admire his skill. In his seemingly endless Victoria speech, he dropped not a hint of what that evidence might be.In fact, one can scour all his speeches with minute care and find no reason whatever to suspect the hapless human.

He doubtless has some profound reason for keeping his powder dry. But his impact will be the greater when he finally tables the seminal peer-reviewed paper which attributes global warming to the activities of humans.

As revealed today on WUWT and via Bishop Hill

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/breaking-phil-jones-got-to-endorse-papers-for-oxburgh-inquiry/

and based on this and other open and unresolved scandals (amazongate) why should we have any faith whatsoever in climate science and the corrupt institutions that peddle this stuff.

1. Because of the costs of our ETS and the changes it will force on us, everyone wants to be sure that the reasoning behind the ETS is unquestionable. So, first, would you please state, in your own words, the actual evidence of a dangerous human influence on the climate?

2. Your government says that, disregarding doubts about the science, we should fear damaging repercussions from our trading partners if we fail to respond to the predictions of a climatic disaster. So what repercussions have occurred or will occur against those very trading partners for their lack of response?

3. What are the results of any analysis the government might have conducted, as is its duty, into the costs and benefits to the nation of having and of not having an ETS, and of the effects of having or not having an ETS on the world’s climate? Or is it the case that no proper analysis was conducted?

4. Were you, John Key and other leading members of the National Government, in changing so publicly from opposing the Labour Government’s ETS to championing it, subject to influence from international bodies or from other countries, or is your about-face linked to the NZ-China Free Trade Agreement?

5. No meaningful international treaty emerged from the greatly-anticipated Copenhagen conference; we alone have installed a wide-ranging scheme. Why has no other sovereign state, ruled by democratically elected leaders, not a regional association such as the EU, ruled by unelected bureaucrats, freely introduced an ETS or other climate-changing scheme?

Number 1 would be my must-ask and the others in that order, in case you get stopped. But change the order of numbers 2–5 as you wish.

I’m aware that one of our objectives here is not only to obtain clear answers (which would be nice), but to publicly demonstrate the absence of clear answers. The more often that happens the sooner the house of cards must collapse.

Good luck! Where is this happening tonight?

Moreover, I’d like some clarification on what markets the NZ ETS will be aligned with. It is my understanding that after the transition period, we will be paying the market rate. So which market do we need to look at?

If you can get an answer, I’d be very happy!
Thanks