麻豆社

no one has explained in what way monetising carbon in an unregulated market is going to do anything except make a few people very rich.

Russia Today article takes a dim view

...UN is wrong body to tackle climate change

Creating a virtual market in 鈥減ermission to pollute鈥� credits that actually reflects reality and the needs of industry, consumers and countries is well beyond the ability of the UN.

Carbon trading is already corrupt. Why would you put it in the hands of the UN, which ran the Oil For Food Scandal with Saddam Hussain鈥檚 Iraq.

Maurice Strong was the main mover behind the UN's involvement in fighting climate change.

He received, countersigned and cashed a cheque for $1 Mln from Saddam Hussein's government in 1997 during the Iraq Oil For Food scandal. He resigned from the UN and went to live in China.

However, he still sits on the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange that buys and sells carbon credits...

NN were told on 9th November there would be no deal.

/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/11/monday_9_november_2009.html

It was from my work for a UN report commissioned by the UK Government that the agenda of the 2005 G8 of climate change and Africa was derived.

So informing NN of such was not some wild stab in the dark guess. It was an informed opinion which would turn out to be fact.

Celtic Lion

one might ask how one is to 'change behaviour' when the planning laws don't let you?

the planning laws ensure people are tied into the one way grid and so have to pay the tax.

there are millions of acres of idle factory roof space and industrial estate land that can be used to generate renewable energy and provide an income to councilks. yet gordon has opposed every bill bringing it in.

the multinationals won't give up easy billions in cash every quarter without a fight.

gordon was wrong on 'the markets' before and he is wrong on them [carbon trading and climate tax] again. just like there were wrong on iraq and then repeated the exact same mistakes in afghanistan.

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

...No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN鈥檚 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the 麻豆社 as 鈥渢he world鈥檚 top climate scientist鈥�), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC鈥檚 policy recommendations. ...



'money money money, must be funny, its a 'climate scientists' world'

..Copenhagen was not about global warming but money.

This is the new global industry based on buying and selling the right to emit CO2, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year, which through schemes such as the UN's Clean Development Mechanism and the EU's Emissions Trading System is making a small minority of people, including Al Gore, extremely rich. ...



as said on these blogs a while back.

Climate Justice = hand over all your money, evil polluting capitalist.

...President Morales, a former trade union leader, is known for his anti-capitalist outbursts and did not disappoint. He called on industrialised nations to pay billions of dollars in climate change "reparations" to atone for having been the historic polluters of the planet. Mr Morales called on the UN to create a "climate justice tribunal" where nations which refuse to tackle climate change could be held to account.

Chavez chipped in with

.."Out there I was reading some signs in the street, the signs carried by the young people. Here's one: 'Don't change the climate, change the system!' I take note of that, let's change the system and then we'll begin to change the world," he said.



Reparations? Trials?

Think I want to see some truly objective work on solar cycles - how they affect our climate and can we get to the truth of Co2 in the ice core's being a true reflection of what was in the atmosphere in relation to other methods Susan. In my view our money is being wasted having you bogged down in all that Copenhagen nonsense.

Been reading theses guys :





Thought this important :

'Currently the Earth is tilted at 23.44 degrees from its orbital plane, roughly half way between its extreme values. The tilt is in the decreasing phase of its cycle, and will reach its minimum value around the year 10,000 C.E.'

UK Gov: Time to show we're serious.



Or... not.

Like Gordon, he seems to have confused 'we in the UK' with 'me, me, me...'. Again. Plus ca change.

Wryly noting tweets from various journalists, pols and 'green' activists moaning that they are stuck in airports on account of the blizzards. And looking forward to catching up at the next jolly.

And here was me thinking it was about reducing GHGs. How did that part work out again?

Also think that if any data and scientific work is put forward by the 麻豆社
we need to understand the funding context of the work - this should be
disclosed as well .

...Last week, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) was issued a report claiming that the Hadley Centre for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian climate data.

The IEA said Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory and that the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey had cherry-picked available data.....



the article also said

'THE Copenhagen conference was rightly killed by greed, science fiction and a surfeit of hot air emitted by the 45,000 delegates, rent-seekers and assorted hangers-on, all of whom attempted to defy common sense and cripple the global economy. '

which seems about right.

"Oil For Food Scandal with Saddam Hussain鈥檚 Iraq"

what was the scandal the fact that 500 000 innocent iraqi children had died as a result of the sanctions or that someone somewhere was providing a means to help prevent those deaths , even if for personal gain?

in the eend we killed 1.8 million iraqis through sanctions, and a further 1 million in a deceitful war.

whats the bigger scandal?

so climate change is so obvious and potentially devastating to the planet and our existence that the worlds leaders cannot agree on a plan.

why not be honest - that the bbc has bought into the politics of climate change rather than the science of climate change - which is abused to give conclusive factual outcomes which dont actually existor be proven or can be predicted with any degree of certainty. there are just too many variables - some of which frankly are unknown.

why not be honest and state the obvious, climate change has been conflated with peak oil/gas, that is there is a finite amount of these resources and without them we are going to find ourselves very much of the third world unless we pursue wars to steal these resources for ourselves and more importantly restrict the ability of under developed countries to pursue the technology that we claim for ourselves.

if we can create false markets and create virtual money we can exploit those countries who dont have the know how of financial markets nor the control of those market. that is we are monetising climate and greenhouse gases without any tangible assets.

when the science is proven the bbc may have a point in its efforts to create perceptions that meet with govt objectives, until then its just propaganda.

Ed Miliband was fighting on, as Gordon Brown said last night that he and the UK would, in search of a global climate deal

Well, that was suitably sober and non-gushing.

So let's get this straight. The Southern nations have blamed Obama, and now his people have asked our people to blame China (duly noted and acted upon), whilst Russia blames (some of) us.

There's choosing battles, and then there's being utter, petulant wallys, making pronouncements from positions that are barely credible to maintain (as Mr. Brown even invited to the big pow-wow that he and his people seem to want us to think they have steered so well?).

Fault lines are poor places to build upon.

Interesting to see what people were thinking in 1975 :

SO FRUSTRATING TO HAVE TO WATCH IT HAPPEN.

No - not man-made climate change but the political mind (cant, hypocrisy, fudge, elision etc) pretending to function as a scientific mind. (NOTE - not the 'scientIST' mind) but the scientIFIIC mind: analytical, self-critical, uncertain, reticent, HONOURABLE!

Had I been Hilary the Oik, or Limited Ed, my business would have died of unscientific thinking. I would have suffered serious loss. Hilary and Ed, of course, are not dependent on RESULTS for their fancy way of life and fat pensions.

So frustrating to have to watch it happen.

16 So frustrating to have to watch it happen.....

the credit crunch could only happen with the aid of an ignorant mainstream press.

the credit crunch could only happen with the aid of an ignorant political class

the credit crunch could only happen with the aid of vested interests funding both of the above.

the 'triangle' of disaster is present again in monetising carbon. [although paul might find some interesting things if he looks].

there are no universal reporting systems, no universal verification systems and no universal democratic control over this 100 billion a year they want and no proof to demonstrate this will even do what they believe. Since when has the 'market' been the best arbiter of resources? its merely 'a belief' that has led to constant disaster. where is the science in that?

CLIMATE IS NOT THE ONLY 'CONSENSUS CITADAL' IN SCIENCE

Anyone interested in how science can put its pig headedness in the sand across a variety of disciplines, might like to go to

"the credit crunch could only happen with the aid of an ignorant mainstream press."

never ignorant .. possibly and more devastatingly supine and compliant to a certain political class.

Dear Mr. Rippon and Ms. Watts,
Climate change is a political issue more than a scientific one and it is probably a good thing that the Copenhagen Meeting achieved so little. It is to be hoped that the 麻豆社 will now encourage unbiased and open discussion on this subject. If one takes man-made climate change as a given, the following claims are still true:
1. The ecological effects of such changes are convoluted. For example, entire branches of the animal kingdom, such as reptiles and insects, thrive with increased temperatures. It makes no sense to claim that climate change is good or bad. It is simply change.
2. The economic consequences of climate change are mixed. Some countries, like Russia, are major beneficiaries. For other countries, such as Switzerland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, the matter is irrelevant. These countries have no coast-line and climate change is benign at all levels of temperature increase under consideration. Some of the countries that might be badly affected are not economically significant. For example, the annual GNP of Chad is a negligible sum, $6 billion per annum. The Stern Report on these matters is biased and based on the politics of the begging bowl.
3. The political remedies for dealing with climate change are numerous and present real political choices. For example, it might be cheaper and more cost-effective for the British taxpayer to allow the Maldive Islands to sink beneath the waves and offer the inhabitants refugee status. The single over-riding issue to prevent carbon emissions is to limit population growth, as the Chinese have done. This matter is never directly addressed by our politicians, such as Mr. Miliband.


Please spare a thought for those who claim that climate change is relatively harmless and of no particular concern for British voters and taxpayers.

Yours sincerely,
The Man on the Clapham Omnibus (Swatts鈥�2)

Good Lord, I am fresh from reading your idiotic statements about how 'weather' is not 'climate. I think you should be aware that you are embarrassing and humiliating yourself the world over, even here on Canada's West Coast. Your comical nonsense on this subject do make one wonder - but a quick Bing search explains this, as it immediately turns up your callous and wholly unprofessional role in the death of one of your sources - very enlightening in regard to your true character, Ms. Watts!

Thus it is no surprise that you can manage to espouse this blather without choking on your own bile - clearly you enjoy the taste, and gargle with it morning, noon and night.

But what could you possibly think you will get out of this? Does it not verge on Treachery to align oneself with Traitors against the Commonwealth? How can you possibly think there will be an England left after this utter and complete fraud deals the final death blow to your once proud nation.

Certainly if England now turns out such twaddle as yourself, she can't be much of a country anymore - the kindest analysis available to the observer would be that it is your intention to destroy your won country. Any other evaluation of your actions would label you a complete fool. Perhaps your fate will mirror that of the people whose lives you have so ineptly damaged in the past.

When you read the science, you鈥檒l find it to be well known that the Earth experiences 30-35 year temperature cycles. Thus any 鈥榗limatologist鈥� who supposedly didn鈥檛 know this would be considered a fool amongst their colleagues.

In fact, if this is your job, you can鈥檛 NOT know about Earth鈥檚 30-35 year temperature cycles!

Thus many scientists have been waiting for this latest warming 鈥榳ave鈥� within the greater 鈥榯ide鈥� to break, which is very likely what we are seeing right now with all of this record winter weather around the world. It snowed last year in Baghdad, for crying out loud 鈥� first time in 100 years!! And now England is snowed in, and the fraudsters have not-so-subtly changed their rhetoric from 鈥楪lobal Warming鈥� to 鈥楥limate Change Crisis鈥�.

But this is only a re-branding of their fraud. Al Gore and crew attempted to use an upward fluctuation in this cycle to spread terror for power and profit, just as Inca and Mayan Priests once used their knowledge of eclipses to intimidate their populations, and pretend a direct connection to God.

The motives of this are plain : Al Gore has a Carbon Credit Exchange waiting in the wings, developed with David Blood and, early in its development, Ken Lay of Enron. These two crooks have already played key roles in collapsing our economies, in their quest for profits under the new 'Scarcity Capitalism' Lay was so fond of, and we are about to hand over our economies to their sinister, vile, greedy machinations.

If you look back at the only really solid data we have, which of course only covers the last 100 years or so 鈥� you will see the two previous cycles were a little longer than this one. If you go long range, you see that overall, we ARE in a warming cycle. It鈥檚 been warmer centuries ago, it鈥檚 hardly a bad thing, there鈥檚 nothing we can do about it anyway, so we prepare, is all. Big deal.

But this game plays out like this 鈥� it鈥檚 not 鈥檚ettled science鈥�, but it is still fairly well known that the latest upward swing would lead to a dip 鈥� and we would have a carbon tax imposed just in time for a 35 year downswing in temperatures, when our energy needs would skyrocket. The payout would go beyond bags of money. It would be Global Fascism at it鈥檚 purest and finest.

Thus they started to go into the schools in the 90鈥檚, to indoctrinate a generation of children in their fraudulent cult 鈥� it鈥檚 easy to see that it鈥檚 been nothing less than timed, if you just do a little 'hindcasting of your own. If this natural upward fluctuation in temperature cycles were to have lasted an extra year or two 鈥� assuming we are looking at the onset of the dip we should be and would be expecting if we had honest leaders who weren鈥檛 trying to enslave us with phony science 鈥� there would be an army of self-hating eco-police coming out to do battle against evil polluting humanity over the next decade and all the laws would have been in place.

It is nothing less than FOOLISH to abandon one source of energy without first developing another. To attempt to force the issue with a blatant scientific fraud destroys any alleged value in such an effort - in case anyone has forgotten, Stalin taught us the true meaning of "The End Justifies The Means".

What Al Gore and the rest of the Climate Clown Cabal did 鈥� and are still trying to do! 鈥� is TREASON. Anybody remember what that is? Well, I鈥檒l give you a hint 鈥� before there can be treason, you need to still have a country first.

Climatologist Prayer :

Our leaders who art in Copenhagen
Alarmists be thy name
Thy Climate Change Come
Cap And Trade Will Be Done
As We Give A Pass To Developing Countries

Give Us This Day Our Carbon Offsets
And Forgive Us Our Carbon Footprint
As We Forgive Those Who Hacked Our Emails
And Lead Us Not Unto Global Warming

But Deliver Us From CO2
For Thine Is The Kyoto Protocol
And The Power To Control Our
Economy For Ever鈥l Gore

Dear Mr. Rippon and Ms. Watts,

There is a new theory out today from Professor Lu. It is all about CFCs, not CO2. What do you think?

鈥淚 didn鈥檛 see any CO2 effect on temperature or ozone depletion over the South Pole from 1956 to 2008,鈥� explained Dr. Lu, surprised at how totally different the real-world measurements were from those that the climate model predicted. The real-world measurements showed CO2 to be largely irrelevant 鈥� 鈥渢he global warming on Earth鈥檚 surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs,鈥� he concluded. 鈥淭he models say that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but the facts show otherwise.鈥�

In contrast, CFCs have long been known to be a greenhouse gas that, on a molecule per molecule basis, is 10,000 times more potent than CO2. Professor Lu鈥檚 satellite and balloon measurements showed that factor of 10,000 to have been a gross underestimate!

Statistical Incompleteness.
All the glaciers in the northern hemisphere have been melting during the last 60 years. So something is going on. Is the temperature of the planet increasing? It is not easy to say. There is doubt whether the planet is warming; this judgment depends on what time-frame and what section of the graph one looks at.
No one will ever know with scientific precision what daily and annual temperatures were 600 years ago during the 鈥淢edieval Warm Period鈥�. Temperature might be returning to the levels of 600 years ago or it might be returning to the highest level it has been for last 1000,000 years. It depends which scientist one listens to. Measuring historical temperature is not easy. Scientists are reliant on proxies for actual temperature measurement, like tree-ring data.
Global average temperature is a constructed measure based on underlying measurements at various places. If one uses a simple test of all-time high, the last time a continental all-time high occurred was in the 1970鈥檚. Drive 40km south of Tripoli and you'll arrive at Al-Aziziyah, where - on September 13, 1922 - the world experienced its hottest air temperature ever recorded: 57.8掳C. So it is arguable that the planet has not warmed in the last 88 years, if one takes all-time high as the key significant measure.
One is disputing a relatively small increase, say 1 cent. By challenging the construction of the averages, the numbers can probably be disputed.

Predictive Power.
Weather models are under-developed and contain many areas of uncertainty. Prediction over 3 days, 3 months or 6 month remains uncertain and fallible. No one can yet fully explain the artic oscillation that has caused the recent cold spell in the UK. There is equally great uncertainty in long-term weather forecasting, as the Met Office readily admits in regard to the CO2 effect:

鈥溾��.the degree of warming due to CO2 is uncertain, but we are certain that there will be some warming. The range of likely temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 is 1.5-4.5 degrees C鈥�.鈥�
27 Oct 2009. Met Office.

By altering one parameter or another within the complex model of a climate system, the greenhouse/CO2 effect, when stated so vaguely, can be reconciled with almost any observed state of affairs. Until predictive power increases, one cannot claim scientific knowledge in the area of long-term weather prediction.

Causal Mechanisms.
Proponents of the global warming hypothesis claim that the only plausible explanation for warming is the CO2 effect. They claim to have ruled out cyclical changes in solar activity and wobbles in the orbit of the Earth etc. The problem for them is that their preferred theory (CO2) is so vague. It would be far better and more honest just to say: 鈥淲E DO NOT KNOW鈥�.

Politics.
In any case, it is basically not a scientific issue. It is all down to politics. See blog 20 above.

DID GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 1940-2010 REALLY INCREASE?

Dear Ms Watts,
Please would you look at the following link and post a comment.
Global average Temperatures in 2008 and 2009 have apparently been amongst the coldest for 30 years, since 1980. Measuring from the peak temperatures of c. 1940, this means that it is reasonable to claim that global temperature has not increased during the the period 1940-2010. In particular, one must have regard to the uncertainty values because it is impossible to measure global average temperatures with absolute certainty.



Please reply.