New Scientist becomes Non Scientist
**************************************************
This is a good starting place for so many good questions.
Posted on 12/21/2009 9:57:06 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Emission allowances for December 2010 delivery fell to 12.77 euros a ton Monday, from Friday's settlement price of 13.58 euros.
The contract earlier dropped as much as 8.7% to 12.40 euros a ton. Emission allowances haven't traded that low in more than six months.
The decline came after the United Nation's Copenhagen summit acknowledged a U.S.-led accord to combat climate change and prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees.
The accord, however, fell short of the climate conference's initial goal of introducing a legally binding agreement on emissions and setting specific limits on the greenhouse gasses that individual countries can produce.
The European Union had been prepared to take a tougher stance by agreeing to a 30% cut in greenhouse has emissions by 2020, which would have increased demand for carbon permits.
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
Wanna buy some HOPE & CHANGE credits?
fyi
carbon credits, the UN’s new oil for food program
The one “market” you hope collapses & goes bankrupt.
When it does, lots of democrat party crooks will lose their huge insider investments.
My cynicism says Sorros was behind the email release and went short a month ago.
I hear Pelosi is into wind turbines...
Is there a permanent cap and trade, carbon credits trading, african reparations or whatever the hell it's called this week thread on Free Republic?
I am still puzzled.
Who specifically dreamed this up?
How does this differ from a "thin-air" cartel?
How can anyone sell something they don't own?
How can they sell what does not exist?
Who authorized the "creation" of something that never existed before?
Who established its value?
How can this scam be continued if it is based on what is verifiably a clear scam?
Who (specifically) stands to profit from the sale of an imaginary "product?"
How does that work exactly? Selling and taxing something created out of thin air (no pun intended)?
If the desireability of this mind-boggling social exercise is really necessary, why is it not administered by governments? Not that the governments are any less corrupt than the private sector crooks, but that begs the question.
Finally, what would it take to dismantle this abortion (if you'll pardon the expression) ASAP?
Parturient montes: nascetur ridiculus mus
********************************EXCERPT INTRO****************************************
The mountains shall labor, and what will be born? A stupid little mouse. Thanks to hundreds of thousands of US citizens who contacted their elected representatives to protest about the unelected, communistic world government with near-infinite powers of taxation, regulation and intervention that was proposed in early drafts of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is no Copenhagen Treaty. There is not even a Copenhagen Agreement. There is a “Copenhagen Accord”.
You can only hope that anybody that decides to get involved in the carbon credit market will lose more money than they can fathom; that they, and all their descendants will live in poverty and shame for all time.
New Scientist becomes Non Scientist
**************************************************
This is a good starting place for so many good questions.
Smoking Guns Across Australia: Where’s the warming? Looking at 16 other locations.
***************************EXCERPT*************************************
On Watts Up tonight, we get some insight into just one specific example of how corrupt science can be. It’s yet another day in the history of the climate-scam where people may say years from now… remember that night we got the news about Darwin? Thanks to Willis Eschenbach’s dedicated analysis.
****************************************
The blue line is the raw unadjusted data from Darwin. There are five stations there and their records are a very tight fit. It’s unusual for all five stations to agree with each other. Yet one of the three top climate centres in the world has “adjusted the data” using corrections that are graphed in black. (More artificial adjustments?) The raw data shows a trend down of 0.7 degrees C per century. After adjustment, the data “shows” a trend up of 1.2 degrees warming per century. It’s the scale of this shift that is so brazen. We’re supposed to be looking for a rise of one fifth of a degree per decade, and that statistical adjustment gave us half that rise.
Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money ****************************EXCERPT*****************************
It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008 and bankers get set to make billions.
“Bullying is their root strength. Take it away from them and they will crumble.”
It will be a bleak Christmas for Al Gore he will be barely able to afford to heat his mansion.
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train
************************EXCERPT INTRO*****************************
Monday, May 28, 2007 by David Evans
A version of tihs article was previously blogged on Mises.org here, and inspired a spirited debate. The author reworked the piece for the Mises.org front page. The blog item remains the same.]
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.
In the late 1990s, this was the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming:
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, proved in a laboratory a century ago.
Global warming has been occurring for a century and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.
Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lockstep: they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!
There were no other credible causes of global warming.
This evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 to curb carbon emissions.
| "Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit." |
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away.
To bad not literally!!!!
ROFL!
Anyone see on Drudge that UK’s Socialist PM is trying to start a global EPA? This ought to be fun.
Two words son...... "Carbon Credits"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.