Massive Climate Funding Exposed
Climate Money
The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – Trillions to come
For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. It’s time to start talking of “Monopolistic Science”. It’s time to expose the lie that those who claim “to save the planet” are the underdogs. And it’s time to get serious about auditing science, especially when it comes to pronouncements that are used to justify giant government programs and massive movements of money. Who audits the IPCC?
The Summary
- The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
- Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
- Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
- Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
- The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?
Read the Full Report at the Science and Public Policy Institute.
There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.
Billions in the Name of “Climate”
In total, over the last 20 years, by the end of fiscal year 2009, the US government will have poured in $32 billion for climate research—and another $36 billion for development of climate-related technologies. These are actual dollars, obtained from government reports, and not adjusted for inflation. It does not include funding from other governments. The real total can only grow.
In 1989, the first specific US climate-related agency was created with an annual budget of $134 million. Today in various forms the funding has leapt to over $7,000 million per annum, around 50 fold higher. Tax concessions add to this. (See below for details and sources.)
..after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence…
This tally is climbing precipitously. With enormous tax breaks and rescue funds now in play, it’s difficult to know just how far over the $7 billion mark the final total will stand for fiscal year 2009. For example, additional funding for carbon sequestration experiments alone amounted to $3.4 billion in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (not included in the $7 billion total above).
The most telling point is that after spending $30 billion on pure science research no one is able to point to a single piece of empirical evidence that man-made carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the global climate.
If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the
“Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.
Click on the graph for a larger image.
…
“Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”
By setting up trading networks, tax concessions, and international bureaucracies before the evidence was in, have we ensured that our understanding of the role of carbon in climate science would be sped up, but that our knowledge of every other aspect of climate science would be slowed down to an equal and opposite extent?
Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where pro-AGW findings are reported and repeated, while anti-AGW results lie unstudied and ignored.
Monopolistic funding creates a ratchet effect where even the most insignificant pro-AGW findings are reported, repeated, trumpeted and asserted, while any anti-AGW results lie unstudied, ignored and delayed. Auditing AGW research is so underfunded that for the most part it is left to unpaid bloggers who collect donations from concerned citizens online. These auditors, often retired scientists, are providing a valuable free service to society, and yet, in return they are attacked, abused, and insulted.
The truth will come out in the end, but how much damage will accrue while we wait for volunteers to audit the claims of the financially well-fed?
The stealthy mass entry of bankers and traders into the background of the scientific “debate” poses grave threats to the scientific process. The promise of “trillions of dollars” on commodity markets—with all of that potential money hinging on finding that human emissions of carbon dioxide have a significant role in the climate—surely acts like blanket of mud over open dispassionate analysis.
All of this means we must be extra diligent in only focusing on just the evidence, the science, the empirical data. Illogic and unreason cloud a debate already loaded with bias. When there are so many incentives encouraging unclarity and overcomplexity, the simple truths need help to rise to the top. But who funds the counter-PR campaign—now that even Exxon has been howled out of the theater of science. There is hardly any money promoting Natural Causes of Climate Change, while billions upon trillions promote Unnatural Forces.
In this scientific debate, one side is gagged while the other side has a government-funded media campaign.
The bottom line
Even if monopolistic funding has affected science, the total amount of money paid to each side won’t tell us whether The Planet’s climate is warming or whether that warming is due to carbon-dioxide. The point of this report is to show how the process of science can be distorted (like any human endeavor) by a massive one-sided input of money. What use would money be, if it didn’t have some impact?
The massive amounts of money involved only makes it more imperative that we look hard at the empirical evidence.
by Joanne Nova
Science and Public Policy Institute
U.S. Government Funding for Climate Change Related Activities 1989-2009
(Millions of Dollars)
| . | Fiscal Year | . | Climate Science | . | Climate Technology | . | Foreign Assistance | . | Tax Breaks | . | Annual Total | . |
| 1989 | 134 | $134 | ||||||||||
| 1990 | 659 | $659 | ||||||||||
| 1991 | 954 | $954 | ||||||||||
| 1992 | 1,110 | $1,110 | ||||||||||
| 1993 | 1,326 | 845 | 201 | $2,372 | ||||||||
| 1994 | 1,444 | 1,038 | 186 | $2,668 | ||||||||
| 1995 | 1,760 | 1,283 | 228 | $3,271 | ||||||||
| 1996 | 1,654 | 1,106 | 192 | $2,952 | ||||||||
| 1997 | 1,656 | 1,056 | 164 | $2,876 | ||||||||
| 1998 | 1,677 | 1,251 | 186 | $3,114 | ||||||||
| 1999 | 1,657 | 1,694 | 325 | $3,676 | ||||||||
| 2000 | 1,687 | 1,793 | 177 | $3,657 | ||||||||
| 2001 | 1,728 | 1,675 | 218 | $3,621 | ||||||||
| 2002 | 1,667 | 1,637 | 224 | $3,528 | ||||||||
| 2003 | 1,766 | 2,533 | 270 | 580 | $4,569 | |||||||
| 2004 | 1,975 | 2,870 | 252 | 500 | $5,097 | |||||||
| 2005 | 1,865 | 2,808 | 234 | 369 | $4,907 | |||||||
| 2006 | 1,691 | 2,789 | 249 | 1160 | $4,729 | |||||||
| 2007 | 1,825 | 3,441 | 188 | 1730 | $5,454 | |||||||
| 2008 | 1,832 | 3,917 | 212 | * | 1420 | * | $5,961 | |||||
| 2009 | 2,441 | * | 4,400 | * | 579 | * | 1160 | * | $7,420 | |||
| TOTAL | $32,508 | + | $36,136 | + | $3,506 | + | $6,919 | = | $79,069 | |||
| *Estimate or Request.………..Annual Spending totals (right hand col) do not include Tax breaks. | ||||||||||||
References:
- Climate Change Science Program, Annual Report to Congress: Our Changing Planet http://downloads.climatescience.gov/ocp/ocp2009/ocpfy2009-8.pdf
- Analytical Perspectives Budget of the US Government, Fiscal Year 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/spec.pdf
- 1993-2005 GAO, Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05461.pdf Appendix II page 34.
- OMB, Fiscal Year 2008. Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change Expenditures, Table 8. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy08_climate_change.pdf
- Atmospheric Sciences and Climate Change Programs in the FY 2009 Budget, p 1. AAAS. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/09pch15.pdf
Acknowledgements: Thanks to Donald Rokkan and to Brad Jensen for editing help and suggestions. Any errors left are all mine, but you both helped improve this report.
The full report is 4400 word document so I will post the separate major themes over the next week.
Climate Money: PARTS 1- 4.
1. Climate Money Massive Funding Exposed. (You are on this page).
2. How auditing of the Climate Industry is mostly left to volunteers.
3. How the monopolistic funding ratchet slows scientific progress.
4. Why blaming Exxon is a smoke screen to disguise the real vested interests.
The short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
Posted on
July 23rd, 2009 under
AGW socio-political, Global Warming • Tags: Bankers, Big-Government, climate change funding, Climate Money, Funding for the climate industry, Grassroots skeptics, JoNova's Favourites, Money, Monopolistic Science, SPPI Original Paper.
• 
Print This Post
• 
Email This Post
• RSS 2.0 feed
• Leave a response, or trackback
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 am
Climate change (Combating AGW) is the world’s biggest industry. Here in the UK it is endemic in government, the civil service, NGOs, charities, the Media, everywhere. And yet it is all based on zero evidence.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:01 am
The funding graph looks to have a bit of a hockey stick shape!
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 am
Do you expect anyone receiving any of the funding discussed above to come back and report “no climate change or ill effects observed”?
Thirty years ago the funding for “climate” research was about 10M $USD, all together from the Federal government.
The people receiving that money were experts in atmosphere, ocean, geology, etc. There was no recognised field as “climatology” at the time.
These investigators undertook long term and careful studies, and retired into obscurity. They were unknown outside their specialty.
Then along came IPCC and the Federal government suddenly became the patron of a Talent Show, wherein glamourous new investigators fought over funds set out to show that “humans” were “altering” (read: “destroying”) the Climate and the Planet.
Enought to make one sick, but unfortunately guided by fashionable Leftist politics – and thereby, not policed by typical University boards set up to guide meaningful research or oversee funded activities
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:19 am
University failure to oversee any of this “research,” by the way, is the main reason this has “gotten out of control,” in American English.
They are the culprits behind the circus chicanery this has become.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:31 am
Philip Bratby is quite right. There is a complete disconnect between the views of those in authority and the public. The “official view” is the opposite of the public view is what I have found. Although the public are not as a whole buying the global warming theory, they are “resigned” to the policy of the government as long as they are not aware of the full cost of it. As long as the costs are applied stealthily they will probably get away with it, even though nearly everyone knows it will make no difference to the climate. Amazing, but true!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:41 am
Mortgage derivatives were blamed for kicking off the current global recession (although in reality it’s a lot more complex than that), what odds of the next global recession results from a catastrophic failure of the carbon market (that’s if carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes haven’t already ruined the worlds’ economies)?
P.S. Any New Zealand readers might be interested in my new website: http://www.signoff.org.nz – a petition against committing to CO2 emission cuts at the Copenhagen conference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:20 am
The failure of the mortgage derivative market in America may turn out to be a minor blip compared to the financial melt down if (when) the carbon market fails.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 am
This is from President Eisenhowers’s farewell speech from almost 50 years ago, (emphasis mine). His fearful prophecy from way back then is coming true today:
Additionally, there are people like Dr. Fred Singer… The leftists/econazis/etc routinely smear Dr. Singer even though they have never been able to form a rational rebuttal against anything he has said. They try to smear him by associating him with the PAID work he did for the tobacco industry but, more importantly, they trot out the $10,000 he received from the Petroleum Institute as proof he’s ‘in the bag’ for big oil. … $10K, whoop-dee-do!
Speaking of BILLIONS… perhaps they are still back on their heels from when he DECIMATED Carl Sagan in a debate concerning the climate implications from Kuwaiti Oil Fires in 1991, (Saddam’s response to “Desert Storm”)? Climate alarmist Sagan said they would affect our climate globally and cause massive agricultural failures, etc. like some nuclear winter scenario. Singer, an atmospheric physicist, cleaned Sagan’s clock and predicted no major impact would occur at all. History bore out that Singer knew what he was talking about and Sagan was speaking out of his, well ….., (Sagan to his credit later admitted that he was completely wrong.)
Sagan died in 1996 so he isn’t here to kick around anymore but there’s an important relationship between him and the anti-nuke crowd earlier back then. He was a vocal critic of Reagan’s “star wars” and nuke build up and therefore the darling of groups like the “Union of Concerned Scientists”, (UCS), whose single purpose back then was to force nuclear arms reductions. But Reagan prevailed, the USSR folded and the UCS was left embarrassed by the idea that peace was assured, not by what those bed-wetters wanted but instead by projecting superior fire power.
But they didn’t go away, they just re-focused their agenda. According to the Marshall Institute,(I know they are out there hissing at me just mentioning that name!), UCS collected huge grants from leftist organizations like a $24 million dollar one back in 2000 and switched to global warming alarmism in place of nuke attack alarmism. Their charter reads: “devise means for turning research applications away from the present emphasis on military technology toward the solution of pressing environmental and social problems.” With nukes off the table, (they kowtow to socialists like Kim Jong Ill so they are mum concerning the nuke threat from him), the global warming scam was a natural for them and Sagan was just one of their stooges who came with a built-in celebrity status.
So while most everyone remembers Carl Sagan, (who really wasn’t such a bad guy otherwise), hardly anyone knows about Fred Singer who is routinely smeared along with his SEPP by groups like the UCS who collect huge sums of money from leftist “foundations”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Rob brings up a good point. At the heart of the mortgage meltdown in the States and the pumping up of the carbon trading scheme seems to have one thing in common: there’s a central force, the government, moving these markets in one direction. A new industry has been propagated under our noses by the American government. Oh, I know! Maybe that’s why we have global warming: more government spending due to the inflation of the dollar has contributed to the increase in global temperatures. After all, if there weren’t more dollars out there, people wouldn’t be able to travel and spend, thus there would be lower carbon emissions everywhere. So this is obviously Bush’s fault for not reigning in spending and Obama’s fault because he thinks the only way to run government is to spend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
To repeat what I have said elsewhere. I give up. Zimbabwe provides the model for the future and that pretty much is that. It was commented in the report under discussion that there need be no programme of deceit. That may have been true in the past; it is true no longer. Deceit defines the game. Why that should be so is unclear, very much so, and will pose great difficulties for any future historian inclined to investigate the foundations of this monstrous act of lying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Yes Chris Bolts, now that we’ve bailed out Goldenman Sachs for losing money in trading overvalued mortgage derivatives, they’re lining up to do the same thing with totally valueless carbon credits. Michael Milken’s mistake was simply being ahead of his time. If he had only waited twenty years he would not have been convicted – he would have gotten bailed out and appointed as Obama’s economic wreckovery Czar.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Anyone interested in a new market for trading in tulip bulbs? they must be due for a comeback and at least they are genuinely “green”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Thank you Joanne, this is one of the best reports of all time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:41 am
[...] Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
For those who haven’t seen it before the following from Rolling Stone (hardly a big oil funded denier rag) exposes the Goldman Sachs connection with AGW and the next big bubble they are trying to create out of thin air.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine
Today’s ICECAP also reveals John Holdren’s gratefulness to Goldman Sachs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Brian # 3 You have essentially hit the nail on the head with this post.
I could quibble around the edges of one of your comments a bit. I remember beginning in the early 60’s of mailing, to a USAF center in Asheville, daily punched paper tapes and later (for years) magnetic tapes of raw weather as gathered from all sources. The place was called the Environmental Technical Activities Center, or ETAC.
When I first inquired as to what they did, the answer was “climatology,” although that was not part of their name, which I suspect was by design.
I know they were in operation until at least sometime the late 80’s, still doing the same job and I remember being jokingly “chewed out” on the phone by the director in the late seventies for not hearing him honking at me (in traffic, in Nashville, TN) after I had been retired from the AF for some years.
And congratulations for you translation to “American English” in #4. I am a big fan of calling a spade by its correct name.
I would also note that after spending (US) $ 4,400,000,000 in FY 2009 alone on “Climate Technology,” we still have problems in the US with gathering accurate temperature readings, and that this is not, at least directly, the fault of academia.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
I assume the table has units of millions? This should be clear, and then I can post the link to others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I am convinced that John Holdren is actually UNABOMBER Ted Kaczynski, who was let out of jail and given a Government job because his environmentalist views were so extreme
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 pm
[...] Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Wow…. Joanne does it again! I think we all knew this was the case with massive one-sided funding but I had no idea of the magnitude. Great work and interesting reading.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Whats new about socialist governments drunk on taxation, sanctioning institutional fraud, aided and abetted by politically corrupt scientists. It reminds me of communism before the wall came down and is now being rebuilt all over the west under the guise of CO2 man made climate change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:48 pm
The only reason that the dollar has any value at all is that the government says it does, “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private”. This is the definition if fiat money. Carbon offsets will only have value because the government says it does, a fiat currency masquerading as a commodity if you will. Man I don’t even like saying it, it makes my skin crawl. Perhaps carbon credits will be the new world wide accepted fiat currency. Then all we will need is another central bank to issue these credits or something that performs the same function under a different name.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
An excellent article. I’ve sent it on to everyone I know.
There are obscenely huge sums of money mentioned here. I wonder where it’s all gone?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 pm
http://www.drudgereport.com/
We made the Drudge Report! Third story under the fold.
And Andrew Bolt:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/follow_the_hot_money/#commentsmore
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Great work, and would be even greater to drill down on EU funding for AGW. A swag of this allegedly goes to the likes of Greenpeace to propagandise the bs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Where did it all go, Jimmy?
Why, it went to create Centres of Climate Fill-In-The-Blank at innumerable universities and government departments, that’s where it went, and once you have created a Centre for Climate Propaganda and Confusion, and have staffed it, then who the devil is going to fund this lovely entity in perpetuity?
Exxon-Mobil?
Of course not, no private enterprise in the world would fund such an albatross and for good reason, the pay-out is exactly zero.
What then do they exist for?
They exist to maintain themselves in perpetuity, to gather nonexistent evidence that the world has been somehow altered only for the worse.
There was a lot of money spent on Star Wars in the 1980’s. But Universities policed themselves over the University participation in that – many professors of science and engineering were told, you support yourself in Star Wars, you’re dead meat.
Here the leftist politics add up to research funding for ever. Plus no blackballing from your colleagues.
You do, however, face getting blackballed if you have a questionable “denier” smell about you
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
[...] Read more at Jo Nova: ‘Massive Climate Funding Exposed’ [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
[...] Read Joanne Nova’s findings in full here. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm
[...] Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 5:55 am
Let’s face it; this is one of the biggest criminal enterprises in the history of man. It claims to be based on socialism and saving the planet, slogans for the sucker, low IQ greenies who go along with this bunko scheme (many of them are crack heads in the Seattle area). I love the way Al Gore comes on with his masterful con presentation while all the time counting away the billions he alone stands to steal with this climate change fraud.
We need to get to GE and let them know that we know that they are criminals and we will deal with them later.
In the meantime we should arrest the global warmers and charge them with mail and wire fraud under Title 18 and put them in a Fed Prison to think about their transgressions.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 6:32 am
[...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 6:51 am
Good going Joanne! It’s now been on Drudge for over 24 hours, a good indication that it’s been getting a lot of hits. I expect that you might soon get a call from FNC to go on Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. There have not been very many people to step up to the plate and try to serve as “leader of climate realists”, (okay, maybe we’ll have to work on a more catchy title), but you have my vote!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 11:38 am
[...] LINK AKPC_IDS += “2788,”;Popularity: unranked [?] [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 11:42 am
This tinfoil report was paid for by oil money!
Really!
ROFLMAO!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 11:47 am
[...] LINK AKPC_IDS += “2790,”;Popularity: unranked [?] [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
On an alarmist blog, one of the anonymous bloggers (did you ever notice they are all anonymous on alarmist web sites?)
told me that he knows of “deniers” who “charge fees” to post comments on alarmist web sites – and was I one of those?
Joanne, will you pay me to write smart-aleck comments on alarmist web sites? Nobody else will
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
So glad you got the word out about the money! I can only hope the USA Senate votes down this hoax. I’ll send your information to Senator Inhofe’s fax. He has been fighting against this debacle for over 10 years. Thanks for your hard work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
[...] Joanne Nova does the math and provides its empirical evidence to back up what many of us have been saying for some time now. The science of gobal warming is a myth designed solely as a means for a few to gain power and control through the creation of a new kind of commodity, sold to the dim-witted using the psychology of fear. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Perhaps carbon credits will be the new world wide accepted fiat currency.
“Money” = “wealth” created by producing something.
“Carbon Credit” = “wealth” created by NOT producing something. (?)
The less you produce, the more wealth you gain!
Now I’m in one of my just-thinking-about Al Gore makes me want to SPIT moods again
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Not quite Brian: “Money” is a promise of value made by the government or central banks.
Just like carbon credits, it’s made from thin air, backed by government decree.
What they give, they can take away.
As they pump billions (and I mean billions) of fresh dollars made from thin air into the worlds banks it steals a little bit of purchasing power from every single dollar out there. It’s worse than being just taxpayer funded. Retirees, savers, tiny tots with piggy banks – they are all paying through the silent tax of inflation.
Carbon credits would be just another fiat currency begging to be mired in corruption and constantly dependent for their very existence on government fiat.
Real things, like oil, banana’s, carrots, and cars don’t exist because the government says they do, and their markets are free (well.. kind of). These things are “wealth”. If you own a house, the house has a value of 1 house, it’s price in dollars though can go up or down 30%. Never mix up money for a real thing. It’s a bit of paper or binary code.
A free market, (ie. no government intervention) in carbon credits would immediately reduce the price to zero, because there is no value (bar fashionable boasting rights) in owning the rights to a piece of air that has slightly less carbon dioxide in it than it theoretically “might have had”.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
But “money” is still tied to production of something or other. It is a form of exchange to produce something else or do something else. The aggregate of things of value is averaged and given the name “dollar” or whatever.
People have incentive to prouduce or exchange something considered to be of value for this.
If a carbon credit is issued in exchange for doing “nothing” then how can it be assigned a value?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Joanne
Real things should equate to “wealth” but it does not happen in real life if you are a small producer. I have a beef cattle property and since 2000 our margins have been badly eroded. The introduction the ETS will see small producers take a huge hit.
Fortunately I am in a better position to survive than many others so I can at least enjoy annoying the hell out of rabid greenies for decades to come.
It is nice to sit up on a hill which overlooks the whole property and calculate the amount of methane I am pumping into the atmosphere. When I become bored with this I can always enjoy a good controlled burn off.
If only I believed in AGW I know that I was being screwed because I was evil and thoroughly deserved it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 24th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
There are two very different things called money.
The first is a real value or a demand certificate of a real value used as a medium of exchange. The real value is a material commodity that has substantial value as a luxury and industrial good, easily divisible, and resistant to environmental decay: ie gold, silver etc. The material commodity takes a significant productive effort to extract from nature and its amount cannot easily be expanded.
The second is fiat money (carbon credits included). Fait money is a financial instrument created by a government and forced on the market at the point of the government’s gun. Its only value is the value of defaced paper or adulterated metal in coins. It is used as a medium of exchange of value but at origination there is no significant productive value behind it. It is simply more convenient to do so than use direct barter of produced goods. Because of the gun of government, the market has little choice in the matter. Unfortunately, the quantity of fiat money can be easily expanded by changing the numbers on the printing plates and running the printing presses longer and faster.
Now that a representation of money exists mostly as computer bits in fictional entities called accounts, its quantity can be expanded at computer speed with hardly any effort at all. There is nothing but the honesty and honor of the government and the banks standing between a stable currency and one that is expanding into hyper-inflation. When the government controls the banking system, neither the government nor the banking system can be trusted not to multiply the bits. See the recent use of synthetic bailout funds by various governments for instructive detail.
Reality is real. There is no such thing as a free lunch. There is a huge bill that is already stamped due and payable. Like it or not, all of us will be paying it along with our children, grand children, and who knows how many generations. There is no government fiction that can keep it from happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I think Joanne and Lionell know more about money and its relation to the economy than the Federal reserve boards of the US and the Reserve Bank of Australia, and I wish these entities would follow Joanne’s and Lionell’s thoughts, rather than their own courses of action
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 4:16 am
A Climate Money “Team”?
The US government funding is obviously a part of a bigger total. But just how much do other governments put in? Is it worth pursuing the numbers?
I don’t have time to track down estimates… but if people want to help expose the Climate Money tentacles, please add comments here with links if you can find them of money put into climate related programs by your national government or your state government (if you are in the US). Heck even stories of local governments getting involved would be interesting. We can’t capture the full audit of councils and schools, but a few good examples would make for interesting reading. It would be telling…
I’ll put that information together (with acknowledgements for all who help.)
If there are any good googler researchers out there your services are in demand. Even if you know the name of the “Climate Change Program” that applies in your sovereign area, that would help. (ie. in the US, CCSP and CCTP). It’s one less step to have to research to find out the funding.
Australia actually has a “Department of Climate Change (and water)”. How many other governments have gone this far? http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/index.html
Cheers! Jo
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Brian G Valentine post 39: If a carbon credit is issued in exchange for doing “nothing” then how can it be assigned a value?
Its value is that having it can prevent the government from doing bad things to you, sort of protection money with all the mob connotations that apply. Its actual value will be discovered in the trading pits by traders and actual users of the credits, power companies etc.
Technically almost all of our money is borrowed into existence. Every dollar you handle has been created this way. The Fed can just print it but in practice they usually don’t, though they have recently they just call it quantitative easing. If the government wants to borrow they will offer bonds which can be purchased by the private sector but they can also be purchased by the Fed Reserve. When the Fed buys them they just put an amount in a ledger account. The money that the government receives comes out of thin air but they have borrowed it into existence from the Fed.
The really irksome thing about all this is taxpayers get to pay interest on all this borrowed money that was just spoofed into existence by the Fed. The whole monetary policy of the U.S. and for that matter any country with a central bank is just crazy, a racket, a scam, a con job. It also depends desperately on inflation in order to ‘work’, deflation will tear it apart.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 5:14 am
An industry, say making steel, would be issued Carbon Credits (if Al Gore had his way).
OK. Now all the steel industry has to do, is go out of business.
Now the industry has wealth, because it was issued carbon credits!
Now the industry can attempt to sell the credits to another (patsy) and so on, which continue to fold for no other reason than to accumulate “wealth” in this way.
Right up to the point where money is worthless anyway, since nothing is being produced.
For the life of me I cannot see what must be the error of this logic
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 6:55 am
Brian @ 45:
I believe you have described a Ponzi scheme.
It makes sense to our politicans, because they are so economically illiterate that they can’t tell the difference between zero-sum games and wealth creation. They should all be assigned to study and explain “The goose that laid the golden eggs”.
It’s strange that a slave in ancient Greece (Aesop) knew more about economics than our ivy-league “educated” elite.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Brian G Valentine post 45:
Taking your thoughts a bit farther, I don’t think they would want to go out of business; they would need to be in the business in order to get subsequent carbon credits. What they might do is search for the sweet spot. Find a production level, probably lower, which maximizes profits on your steel while allowing you to still sell off some portion of your unused carbon credits each year. This kind of governmental intrusion into the whole supply/demand equation is so dangerous I can’t describe it with any language I know. I would need to invent one.
Intuitively I would expect lower employment, off shoring more, if not all, manufacturing, and supply shortages of effected products.
I think the error of the logic is in the whole concept that the government can bequeath value on something that has no intrinsic value. It’s almost like the Catholic Church selling dispensations during 1500s’. If you look at it from the politicians’ point of view he gains a lot of power and control. It’s backdoor socialism, and command/control centralized economy.
So I wouldn’t spend a lot of time looking for any logic in any of this. It will fail and it will fail miserably lets hope it does that fast before to much damage is done.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Just so you may feel a little sorry for us here in the UK.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/
and then there is
http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/index.html
AND, we have a prime minister we did not vote for.
Which is small fry come to think of it………
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 8:49 am
News from the “May the Court have mercy on the boy for killing his parents for he is now an orphan” department.
Well, Global Warmers, you’re the ones who put them out of business with your carbon taxes!
So what if they’re all made in China now, stop BELLYACHING
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 11:33 am
… plus the additional value brought to the equation by that gun you mention.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Once again, the value comes from the gun that Lionell speaks of. The value of not getting clobbered is generally high enough to balance any ledger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
umm, Mr Telagraphy, isn’t a demand forced by preventing threatened harmful action better known as “extortion”?
Under what categories do businesses normally account for extortion?
And are they usually accounted as a credit or debit?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Looks like Joe romm and soros are outspending BIG oil.
big air.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Joe acts out the way he does because he wants a political green policy or enforcement appointment.
Joe performs these (unscheduled) auditions for those in the Obama government who are, rather ho-hum to his mediocre talents in demonising critics and hyperventilating about imagined threats.
Joe had all he could to keep from throwing a temper tantrum in a moderated debate with Marc Morano and even if he did, Joe’s performance wouldn’t have been rated any lower.
(I don’t know what I’m going to do if AGW hysteria goes away. I fear I will simply be unable to come up with anything remotely funny )
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Brian G Valentine post 52:
“Under what categories do businesses normally account for extortion?
And are they usually accounted as a credit or debit?”
They are a debit, category miscellaneous to protect the guilty.
Governments aren’t that far removed from any gang organization during a crisis. They just dress better and carry better firearms, oh, and they tend to shave. Check R.J. Rummel Death by Government almost 170 million killed by their own governments in the 20th century. What’s a little extortion between friends?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
If you are a simpleton using single-entry bookkeeping, then it falls under the category of “oh bugger, there goes my stuff again,” and you end up owning a bit less than you did before (but you stay alive another day). This has been the standard method of peasant accounting since the dawn of history.
If you are a sophisticate using double-entry bookkeeping, then a Credit appears in your cash account and you need to invent a Nominal Expense Account to hold the balancing Debit. Look for a column titled “Hypocrisy”, the expenses will usually be under there. Sometimes the written title of that column may change, many euphemisms are available for this purpose (you know how it is with those Nominal Expense Accounts, all sorts of things can happen).
For example, the recent Howard government in Australia sent a substantial sum of money (some tens of millions if I recall) to Saddam Hussein in Iraq via the Australian Wheat Board under the heading of “Transport Expenses”, then everyone “forgot” about it afterwards. Somehow we have a multi-billion dollar black market in opiates that turns up nowhere on any account, but the money changes hands and all accounts still balance — figure that one out, in this day of Big Brother being able to scrutinise anything about anyone, how does such massive money transfer stay under the radar?
For those with a serious creativity deficit, just rule one big column and call it, “Cost of Doing Business”. Good for all occasions.
As for the exact definition of “extortion”, this tends to be a bit of a personal decision, with similar problems to the exact definition of “bribery” and the very fine distinctions of “freedom” and “for your own good”. You will be needing the services of someone much more highly qualified than myself to help you with those.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Elected lawmaker to him/her self, contemplating their existence:
“Do something! Do something! Do SOMETHING, anyway, you fought so hard to get this office, now just do something, will ya? You can write laws, so write ‘em! Are you gonna leave this dump and be remembered by everyone (including yourself) as a ‘do-nothing’? And are you going to let your next opponent for this office call you a ‘do-nothing’ in public?
And Greenpeace is all set to call you ‘denier’s abettor’ – Jesus, look at what they did to your last opponent …”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Oh yeah, I almost forgot.
If you are the gal/guy who does the GST examples on the Australian Tax Office website, and you are using Triple Entry Bookkeeping (which seems designed to gently ease the reader into an introductory understanding of n+1 entry hyper-dimensional accounting) then you are a certified genius to have any idea how that stuff works and what it means. The one thing I have yet to figure out is how to make any of the examples balance, but maybe that’s part of my reluctance to use imaginary number theory for accounting purposes.
The one thing I did pick up from reading the legislation is that Goods and Services Tax does apply on both bribes and extortion, unless those bribes and/or extortion payments are either tax or fees from a registered financial institution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
I just love this web site because I can write exactly how I feel
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 25th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Any chance of returning to Jo’s post 43 above. ?
namely,
Joanne Nova:
July 25th, 2009 at 4:16 am
A Climate Money “Team”?
The US government funding is obviously a part of a bigger total. But just how much do other governments put in? Is it worth pursuing the numbers?
How about introducing a “fun” elemant to the searching as well, such as the daftest funding.
ie, You’ll be amazed how much and by so many countries is being put into cow trumps research.
Just try a google search on cow trumps..
But they are not taxing farmers, no, no, of course not..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 1:46 am
I think Government policy is guided by the philosophy, “who can I walk upon and not cause a revolt”?
Big business is always an easy target because politicians know that the Public mistrusts “big business” anyway.
Farmers are kind of protected because of the public outcry that would result from leaning on farmers. “Hey what are you doing to the farmers? Haven’t you done enough damage around here without putting farmers out of business?”
But when the Government sets out to scare people with “climate change,” and harps on it, and gets the Royal Society to back them up and so on, then the Government can start “doing things” that the Public expects them to do.
“Hey we have a climate change problem, now we have to pay to fix it.”
But the Public may suspect, yet has not been proven beyond doubt, that Royal Society pronouncements about “climate change” are wholly bogus.
That’s where we (the Jo Nova’s of the world) come in I suppose.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Besides the near 80 billion fueling the fraud machine, there is the salary level of the top MSM network news reporters who would have to claim they are qualified for Sainthood before you could throw stones at them for hanging on to their $million plus salaries to perpetuate AGW/’green’ drivel. They have sold their souls and become puppets of the people who own those networks. NBC is the easiest example in that they are owned by General Electric who stands to reap a fortune from their investment in ‘green’ technology, (wind mills, CFL light bulbs, ’smart grid’ technology, etc.) Then you start looking at the GE Political Action Committee, (GEPAC), and find that they made political campaign contributions of over $2 million just for the 08 election alone. So not only are they controlling the strings of their NBC news anchors – they’re also trying to do that with our elected officials.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 1:56 am
General Electric’s actions are positively ghastly and when I think of how they distorted the vison of its founder, Thom Edison, or its one time visonary leader, Welch, I get SICK
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 2:02 am
George Marchall, project manager of an alarmism organisation, quouted before by me, and who won’t let me write on his web log, said it all for me anyway:
Claimate change is nothing but a trojan horse built by hair-shirted envionmentalists.
Men, women, children who aren’t tainted beyond repair about the truth of “climate change” – listen to George Marshall. He’s telling you the TRUTH
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 2:09 am
OK, so we don’t sound too miserable whilst looking for the appropriate links ..
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2008/07/10/cow-farts-collected-in-plastic-tank-for-global-warming-study/
There again, I think Greenpeace is worthy of a far more indepth investigation into who is funding their activities..
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/01/well-funded-well-funded-denial-machine.html
I wonder what the backlash would be if it turned out
to be in a large part “our taxes”…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Back in the 1950’s the Communists promised to “bury” the West.
I didn’t think they would do it.
But they did it! THEY FINALLY DID IT!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 2:20 am
What an irony if it was “funded” by profits from abiotic oil. !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 2:58 am
About six months ago Gordon Brown paid a visit to these United States and was invited to address the Senate.
Gordon Brown, to the US Senate:
“We must figure out new ways to repair the West’s financial institutions and to create wealth with new green jobs.”
ummm, Mr Brown, see #51 above, were you really expecting any other outcome?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 6:35 am
Mr Brown didn’t see the present recession coming, that he had created.
How could he possibly be any use for such small problems as repairing a Nation’s financial institutions and creating wealth. ?
He’s not even much good on You Tube either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 6:44 am
The solution is so simple, though:
Get rid of any carbon tax, get rid of any incentive to “go green” at all, stop wasting money looking at “climate change”, get the engineers and scientists on the Government dole to look for ways to do conventional things MORE CHEAPLY, not MORE GREENLY.
Stop the pretension about “green” anything, (because it’s useless and it’s useless and it’s useless) and you’ll get the economy going once again.
I promise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 6:48 am
The reason Mr Brown appears so poorly on camera is that he monentarily leaves his mouth agape when he completes a sentence, and then he closes his mouth again quickly before he commences a new sentence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 26th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Oh, and I thought it was because of what came out of his mouth between the
” he monentarily leaves his mouth agape when he completes a sentence, and then he closes his mouth again quickly before he commences a new sentence. ” episodes.
If only he’d learn to keep his mouth shut when starting a new sentence.
LOL.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 1:56 am
I find the inclusion of science and technology research strange to object to.
I would have thought that someone who believes that the science is not settled at a much lower level than the IPCC has reported, would see a need for much more research.
After all, if we don’t know the cause of the current warming, we owe it to policymakers to find out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 2:00 am
I’ve encountered the analysis that the current recession was caused by a credit crisis that had its origins in the US sub-prime mortgage market more often than the one that Gordon Brown caused it.
But he certainly lacks Charisma compared to his recent predecessors.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 6:28 am
[...] $23 million). Published by SPPI, the report can be found here. Jo provides the following summary here:The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 6:42 am
[...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 6:43 am
[...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 7:02 am
“… if we don’t know the cause of the current warming …”
?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 27th, 2009 at 7:10 am
But he certainly lacks Charisma compared to his recent predecessors.
Mr Blair is many things, certainly, although I don’t know if “charismatic” is among his more highly recognised attributes.
I appreciate Mr Howard’s and Mr Blair’s support of the war to remove Saddam. I will always appreciate both for that.
I regret Mr Blair felt the need to atone for his decision to remove Saddam by “going green”
… as well as hanging out with the likes of that lout, Sir Richard
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 28th, 2009 at 2:58 am
Brilliant line Joanne.
“outsource your thinking” From the video clip on
http://icecap.us/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 28th, 2009 at 6:49 am
Great video Henry Chance.
May I add a direct You Tube link to the video you mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0veQQgGxKus
and another of Jo at the CC in New York.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cB2lOIqghOA
If you have a You Tube account then why not and them to your playlists.
I have.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Weiun&view=playlists
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Planting false evidence is a crime, tampering with evidence is a crime, cooking the books is a crime, perjury is a crime, perverting the course of justice is a crime, but none of these are crimes within our public institutions or in the court of public opinion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
July 29th, 2009 at 6:08 am
[...] Nova, “For the first time, the numbers from government documents have been compiled in one place. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 3rd, 2009 at 5:08 am
[...] Hardly a fair contest, $79 billion versus $23 million. But to get more insight on the way this affects the perception of what theory or theories are correct. Read more here [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
August 16th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
So how much funding should be spent to study another kind of threat to our planet but one which has nothing to do with climate? Though, similar to the earth’s geologic climate history, what if the knowledge of this other threat was also based upon events that actually happened in our past? What if it is a threat with actual convincing scientific evidence that suggests it may even have in one instance wiped out more than 90% of life on this planet? But what if yet another aspect of this other threat was uniquely VERY different from climate in that further study could actually lead to an actual defense against it happening to us?
And, probably most importantly… what if there was no profit in persuading people that this other threat was real and also no possibile way to convince people to blame themselves for it – no way to brainwash them into feeling GUILTY over something for which they have no control whatsoever?
So… how much money is it worth compared to ‘global warming’? 1/10th? 1/100th? … how about not even 0.004 the cost spread out over ten years!
Asteroid tracking – NASA cannot even scrape up a measley $300 million to catalog large asteroids some of which actually could ‘have our name on them’ in the future.
Let us pray, not for anyone to be harmed of course but, should a 1000 footer come our way in the near future, that it slams right into Al Gore’s house when no one is home leaving nothing but a deep smoking hole in the ground. Lord, we pray for Your Cosmic Justice, justice that no one will deny!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 am
Thanks Joanne for the great info, I heard you on the Jason Lewis show here in the US and will do my best to spread it across the internet! Thanks again
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 20th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I have positively established a formula that connects the magnetic involvement of the internal atom to what science is applying as Gravity. My simple formula now confirms that these two forces are equal and the same. My book Climate Change – Explained by Magnetism is available (ISBN 0-978-0 646-47722-0) The break though I have achieved is that Climate Change is attributed to our Sun’s Heliosphere switching that was identified by NASA – USA on the 15 February 2001. As from that date area, our climate has progressively becoming cooler in summer, and our winters progressively, getting warmer. This is because of the interaction between our Earth’s Magnetosphere and the magnetic effects of the Heliosphere. Believe it or not, but the facts are there and should be carefully looked at before any future advise on Carbon Dioxide is made that rates human life is responsible for Climate Change. I have no connection between any industrial or commercial connections. I am privately asking that all affected industries seek my book and presentation and then decide for themselves if this can be true. When they are satisfied, I will gladly give additional details how this material can fight the IPCC and Mr Al Gores indoctrination to tax the world of its income. I need your support as well as you need mine.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
November 30th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
[...] dont forget the money trail, there is the rates as [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
November 30th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Wow – the amount of money is staggering – imagine if all that had been put to a good cause!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 13th, 2009 at 9:00 am
[...] the Global Change Research Act had $5 billion at its disposal in 2004. Joane Nova has a piece on Massivc climate funding exposed. Also SPPI report – Government grant system = more an inhibitor of truth and innovation. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:10 am
Jo, I have had a quick look through one of the “leaked” CRU documents – a .XLS spreadsheet entitled “pdj_grant_since_1990″ which gives a breakdown of some £13.7million funding to them. I make roughly £10.5million of that coming from UK government or quango sources. The rest seems to be EU/US Government funding, with a few grants from companies. There is a text version viewable here:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16992057/Climatic-Research-Unit-pdj-grant-since1990
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 7th, 2010 at 10:09 am
Do you truly think that is true? You did an excellent job stating your point, but I think you must put a little more thought in this debate and maybe post an answer to the opposite side of this post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
[Thomas T S Watson] As of 1 October 2009, I changed my email address from ttsw@datafast.net.au to ttsw@bigpond.com. because of dial-up restrictions.
My conviction to my theory is slowly growing and a member from the University Of West Australia gave me a challenge to submit a scientific paper to the Journal Geophysical Research. This is now being prepared. I am confident of my findings and now need peer review to prove my theory is practical by showing why our Earth has a moon, oscillating between or hemispheres. My theory also referrers to the fact that our solar system has a basic alignment to each other planet and is supported by the study of five members from South African, showing our Earth’s spiral orbital patterns are confirmed with graphics by: WJR Alexander, F. Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe and N Willemse of Journal of South Africa – Vol 49 November 2 June 2007
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 8th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
[Phillip Bratby] Phillip. i agree. This money has been applied to convince the world that Carbon Dioxide is the villain and has caused this Climate Change without any proven scientific evidence, other that the botched scientific evidence that was presented by the IPCC and Mr Al Gore. Their so called evidence has been disproved and our Earth is now COOLING since 1998. The evidence I have shows without doubt that our climate has been changing since 2001 and that our Climate change is totally influenced by our Sun’s heliosphere reversal on the 15 February 2001. Our Sun’s Heliosphere reversal also directly affects the barometric pressures that directly affects cloud heights and this is the base reason why our climate has drastically changed. Carbon Dioxide has had absolutely nothing to do with this climate change.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0