JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The carbon casino caught with its pants down (again)

carbon credits catch fire

Another major carbon auditor goes down.

Norways’ DNV (Det Norse Veritas, “The Norwegian Truth”) was the largest auditor of the infamous CDMs (Clean Development Mechanisms) until it was suspended last December when it was caught selling carbon credits for projects it hadn’t checked. At the time it was so large it had approved fully half of all CDM credits on the market. Its excess workload was transferred to number two auditor, SGS, and shock, this week, SGS has been caught and suspended because it couldn’t prove it’s staff had properly vetted projects either. Indeed it couldn’t show that they were even trained to do that vetting. (Did SGS not see this coming?)

When the West offered money to buy the rights to air-with-slightly-less-carbon-dioxide-than-it-could-have-had, China and India put up their hands and said “Yes please” 900 times. And why wouldn’t they? CDMs are worth about 20% of all emissions trades, which amounted to $126 billion in 2008. Up until the global financial crisis it was doubling annually, like all good ponzi schemes do.

This supposedly “free market” has none of the normal limits which make it hard for companies to get away with cheating … namely a connection to real material goods: usually if you don’t have it, you can’t sell it. But with carbon credits, customers can buy fake products and never know the difference — even after it’s “delivered”. That’s what you get when you deal in atmospheric nullities.

…with carbon credits, customers can buy fake products and never know the difference — even after it’s “delivered”.

It might be called a “carbon market”, but remember that no one actually trades carbon, they trade rights to emit air with less carbon, and it’s not even as physical as air with less carbon than it used to have (something we can measure). No, it’s worse than that: it’s air with less carbon than it might have had.

So it’s an underwhelming surprise that the top two auditors have both been caught selling “Credits for emitting air that might-have-had-more-carbon-in-it, which might-have-been-checked by people who might-have-been-qualified to check these things”. Selling bridges in Boston has more respectability.

Fortunately, because carbon doesn’t appear to make much difference to the climate, whether the schemes work or not is a moot point. Arguably, if The Point is assuaging western guilt for our successes, then an imaginary credit is just as good as a real one. It’s one of those rare occasions where the placebo effect is 90% effective.

Ultimately this is a market that depends on unknowable, unprovable motivations: I wouldn’t have cleaned up or closed down my dirty factory without all that money. Really. And by the way, I’m thinking of building another one just like it… (Oi! want to pay me not to build it?)

Mass marketing meets the Emperors new clothes —  with undertones of extortion. This is how we save the world?

Recent legislation has tried to close some of the loopholes, and like everything, there are honest operators out there among the crooks. But seriously. It’s like knitting a battleship and hoping to make it waterproof with bureaucrats. It’s not a question of closing loopholes — it IS a loophole. There is almost nothing we can actually pin down — it’s an open invitation for scammers and con-artists. The mat at the door says: “All Rorters Welcome. If we catch you cheating we’ll change the rules.  Next time you’ll have to cheat differently.”

“It’s not as if we’re printing money in a garage,” Yvo de Boer, U.N. climate chief, said of the credits. Which is true, there are no garages involved. Just large multinational corporations.

Mass marketing meets the Emperors new clothes —  with undertones of extortion. This is how we save the world?

And it’s not as if the funds transfer from the West to the Third world is helping the poor people in the street. The billions of dollars in payments often end up with the financial brokers in London, and with potentially corrupt bureaucrats in China. Interviews with locals near the Xiaoxi dam project suggest people were evicted from their homes, and were not paid enough compensation to buy new homes. The money for the credits associated with the  dam was supposed to reduce carbon emissions, yet construction for the Dam started a full two years before the application for CDM funding was even entered. (Before!) What looks like a Dam, acts like a Dam, but isn’t…?

Bureaucrat-ite may work like a glue plugging holes, but it repels free-markets. Too many bureaucrats and too many rules makes a free market “fixed” in every sense of the word. But the carbon-that-might-have-been-released market can’t be a bureaucrat-free, free-market. It has to be a bureaucrat-rich. The only thing “free” about this market is the price people would pay for carbon-which-might-have-been-released-but-wasn’t.

Full stories:

DNV gets pinged Dec 2008

SGS busted Sept 2009

(Yvo de Boer’s quote about printing money.)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The carbon casino caught with its pants down (again), 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/mssada

49 comments to The carbon casino caught with its pants down (again)

  • #
    bill-tb

    Carbon credits, the new age Soylent Green — The biggest scam ever, well since the sub-prime mortgage scam that was all about people buying houses they couldn’t afford, with government approval of course.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Mortgage backed securities have crumbled. Commodities are down. How now. We have vapor backed securities. Vapor backed trading has to be solid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan Sutherland

    You have raised another relevant topic. I quite agree this is a tenuous link in the very shaky chain. AGW is all a house of cards.

    I also have been looking at the “carbon offsets” I can purchase. For example, on offer is a share of the emissions saved by a Chinese mini hydro station which might otherwise have been a coal fired station (not the one you refer to, but at Mani). This happens because China is not in Kyoto (and not expected to be in the Copenhagen round either). If it was, the “lack of increased emissions” would have just been part of the country’s obligations. China would have a carbon tax or similar and if the new station had been coal fired, it would have had to buy carbon rights – by choosing hydro the project would have saved the necessity to buy carbon. Not being in Kyoto allows them to make money by selling hypothetical reduced emissions.

    Five “verified” projects are offered by a reputable firm; the one above, a wind farm in China, a solar project in India, improved stoves in Cambodia which use 4% less wood, and a biomass project in Nahar (using waste rice husks as a source of fuel to generate electricity for a spinning mill). Think about these! The other issue to watch for is whether the firm is over-selling the rights, or whether some other firms are also selling the same rights in these projects. Not only will we need to audit the emitters, but also audit the offsetters and audit their individual projects – which I assume means heaps of people constantly gadding all over the world. After all, is it possible one of the wind farm turbines breaks down and is never fixed but the emissions reduction rights last forever?

    Surely this system also means Australia should stand outside the new Copenhagen agreement. Then the country could sell emissions reduction rights to Europe. My first project would be solar panels to heat swimming pools? Or a proposed settlement in the Nullabor plains which Australia will not approve in return for selling the saved CO2 emissions?

    The purpose of all this is supposed to be to REDUCE emissions, whereas the offsets I have seen do not reduce but are akin to a blackmail statement that unless someone gives money for this windfarm in China, they will increase emissions instead.

    NZ has finalised the design of its ETS (although not yet law). The government is proudly broadcasting that we are the only country in the world to include agriculture (from 2015). Never mind that the world might have a good reason to exclude agriculture – for example feeding their citizens and the world. Our climate change minister (Dr Nick Smith) puts it that we are the first to include “natural sources of GHG”. Of course even this is not true. We specifically target GHG from productive enterprise, and do not include wetlands for their methane, or people for breathing (yet). A cow uses CO2 (which is already in the atmosphere) to grow, and it releases a little bit back in the form of methane which converts back to CO2. I suppose that’s another thread to pursue.

    Alan


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dallas Beaufort

    Failure is one way for the green left and the lost to produce millions of poor weed pullers (green jobs).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Overseasinsider

    Thanks Joanne, it’s not like we needed any more proof that AGW/Carbon Trading/Carbon Offsets is a farce, but the more info we have that we inform our friends, family and associates with, the better!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    So true it’s scary.

    The greens will get to live in the fairyland that they so desperately want, the corporatists get the money they want, governments consolidate their power base. Everyone wins!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    … millions of poor weed pullers (green jobs).

    But they are not poor, they are rich! So very rich! Spiritually rich that is, and pure of heart. Unsullied by the complex and confusing ideas like efficiency and productivity.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    … or like these employees of British Global engineering consultancy WSP which has been conducting a carbon rationing scheme among 80 of its British employees for almost two years. WSP is planning to expand its rationing scheme next year to cover 3000 employees in offices around the world:

    RATIONING A WINNER IN CARBON REDUCTION SCHEME

    “PEOPLE who produce more than their fair share of carbon emissions are having their pay docked in a trial that could lead to rationing being reintroduced via the workplace.

    Britain’s first employee carbon rationing scheme is about to be extended after the trial demonstrated the effectiveness of fining people for exceeding their personal emissions target. Unlike the energy-saving schemes adopted by thousands of companies, the rationing scheme monitors employees’ individual emissions, including home energy bills, petrol purchases and holiday flights.

    Workers who take a long-haul flight are likely to be fined for exceeding their annual ration unless they take drastic action in other areas, such as SWITCHING OFF THE CENTRAL HEATING [emphasis mine] or cutting out almost all car journeys. Employees are required to submit quarterly reports detailing their consumption. They are also set a target, which reduces each year, for the amount of carbon they can emit.”

    Now, I’ve lived most of my life in Northern Europe and I can assure you that “switching off the central heating” is not a pleasant option for most of the winter (sometimes the summer, too …)

    But as Tel says, at least they can feel a warm glow around the heart, if that’s where the conscience resides.

    Full article:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26072310-26040,00.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Anne-Kit Littler:
    September 16th, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    So who is his or her right mind would employ that bunch of bozos to do any engineering consulting?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Mike(#9),

    I think I understand where you’re coming from here, with this sentiment. But, not wanting to rain on the parade, I have to say I think you are overlooking a couple of things.

    First, we have the luxury of sneering at a company that does this, while they are doing something unusual. What if this type of practice becomes the norm? It easily could, you know. What if others adopt the idea, and it reaches the point where companies that *don’t* monitor and punish their employees’ private lives are ostracised? What choice will people have then, as regards where they work, and who they purchase their goods and services from?

    Second, regarding “who is his or her right mind”, you have forgotten that there are hundreads of millions of people who are convinced that the earth has a fever because of CO2, that people like Joanne Nova and Mike Borgelt are evil incarnate, and the sun shines out the backside of people like WSP who are prepared to do their bit to save us.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    CDMs have been a real winner for China, India and investors involved in joint developments in those countries. The big earners were chemical companies producing HFC-23 gas. One ton is equal to 11,700 tons of C02. HFC-23 can be removed relatively inexpensively by installing “scrubbers”. As twice as much was earned through CDMs than from selling the refrigerant gases output increased substantially. The UN finally got wise and limited the CDMs to factories built before 2004.
    In the interim for an investment of $100million in “scrubbers” companies producing HFC-23 earned $4.6 billion in credits.
    The Chinese government taxes CDMs at 65% and you can bet the money is not used for green technology.
    In India its much the same story. A European consortium which included Shell,EDF and Barclays Bank invested in SRF Limited India’s largest chemical and textile company. The company earned $87 million from CDMs.
    The latest CDM scams involve nitrogen oxides as they are 310 times more powerful that C02 and methane sequestration and no doubt the story will be the same as HFC-23.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Larry Lohman of environmental and human rights NGO The Corner House sees fundamental problems with the entire market logic of the Kyoto project system: “The biggest offset buyers want cheap carbon credits, and lots of them. The most reliable providers will be big, highly-capitalised firms or agencies in a position to hire carbon consultants and accountants, liase with officials or pay the fees needed for UN registration. Carbon-saving schemes that take the trouble to respect community rights, on the other hand, tend to be fiddly, expensive, low-yield, or difficult to implement politically.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan Sutherland

    This news item appeared today in New Zealand’s teletext. I quote:-

    “Arctic ice shrinks again.

    The Arctic’s sea ice pack thawed to its third lowest summer level on record, continuing an overall decline symptomatic of climate change.

    The range of ocean remaining frozen over the northern polar region reached its minimum extent for 2009 on September 12, when it covered 5.1 million square kilometres.

    US scientists say it now appears to be growing again as the Arctic starts its annual cool-down.”

    This comment may have been more appropriate under the heading Clusters Last Stand – but what the heck. Suddenly an increase in the mimimum ice extent over the last two years has become a continuing decline? A more factual news item would have been “Arctic mimimum sea ice extent recovers from recent lows for the second consecutive year.”

    This one news item summarises why I don’t believe in AGW – if AGW was true there would be no need to manipulate and lie about it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Alan: “if AGW was true there would be no need to manipulate and lie about it”.

    That is a great comment. However, the fact that “they” do lie about it is still inexplicable. Seriously, I am an intelligent person, but on this I’m totally flummoxed. I really, really just don’t get why they do it.

    We have seen in the last week a serious article in a major newspaper stating that polar bears are expected to be extinct within 70 years. We have seen it stated that the fires in California were caused by global warming. We have seen a claim that the average temperature of the oceans has increased, without reference to the empirical measurements.

    You know already that the list is endless. You’d think that anyone with an iota of sense would see throught this rubbish, it’s so blatantly ridiculous and outrageous. But here’s the bad news… people believe it. Lots of people believe it. In fact, in moments of despondency it really looks like these madmen are winning the battle.

    In the meantime, eco-terrorists have dumped faecal matter at the house of a known sceptic, and slashed the tyres on people’s cars. Chinese government officials have stated that they could reduce the world’s temperature by 2C if they wanted to, it’s just that they don’t want to.

    Know what I’m saying? Why are they doing it? Why? Not the politicians and the people who stand to make a lot of money. No, I mean the journalists and the teachers and the community leaders and the ordinary people. Why? And what has happened to the minds of the good folks that used to be able to tell the difference between truth and garbage? Lost.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    However, the fact that “they” do lie about it is still inexplicable.

    [snip]

    But here’s the bad news… people believe it. Lots of people believe it. In fact, in moments of despondency it really looks like these madmen are winning the battle.

    Yup, you do seem to have answered your own question.

    There is a little bit of good news, we only have to keep them at bay long enough for the system as a whole to go which way it goes and we merely make sure no one can claim to have “fixed it”. Fortunately, growing nations like China and India are going to keep using this as leverage to maintain their own growth whilst keeping the first world nations in a navel gazing downward spiral.

    Even should an ETS actually be put into law, the implementation of such a scheme will inevitably be so incredibly corrupt that it will achieve nothing whatsoever… and that will most likely become obvious within maybe 5 or 10 years. Each nation will be put into a position where the biggest cheat wins, and they will indeed cheat, loudly blaming all the others for the cheating that is going on.

    Some of the greens will possibly wake up and realise that the corporates never even remotely intended to change what they do (real sacrifice is someone else’s problem), the military and all of the industries that really matter will quietly but insistently create exemptions for themselves.

    Business as usual really.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mike Wright

    As far as lies are concerned, the current farce surrounding the opening of the North East passage due to climate change are worth looking in to.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan Sutherland

    Steve

    Thanks for your comment. I agree there is a long list of lies. Al Gore’s errors were pointed out to him but made no difference to his message. This converted his errors into lies because he knew (at least some) were untrue. Errors in the infamous hockey stick have been highlighted – not only did the authors carry on promoting it, but extended the same techniques to the Antarctic, and now the Arctic. Pick the answer you want before doing the study, reject all data that does not fit the conclusion and then use complex statistical techniques which he average person cannot argue against. And then have the results peer reviewed by the same conspiratorial club. I weep with you. For a certain amount of time these lies might prevail – “Science” and the “United Nations” combined, how can they be wrong? But truth always wins (in concert with Nature), its only a matter of how long this takes.

    I have been reading that here in NZ, our emissions trading scheme has been watered down to such an extent it will make no difference to climate, only to the economy. So why do it? Opposite obfuscation to AGW. Alarmists cannot argue the government is doing nothing. Skeptics cannot argue that the government has adopted the alarmist position, only one that the international community will accept as “doing our bit”. So the original purpose was to save the planet but we have moved on from there. It is called the “Golden Mediocre”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    Two years ago all the climate change pundits were predicting a huge impact to commercial shipping as everyone would rush to use the “now open” North passages (both Northwest and Northeast). But so far to date the percentage of actual commercial shipping using either of these routes is a number so close to zero we could safely say none at all.

    Yet another grand prediction that fell flat. Maybe next year. Maybe Joanne should keep a prediction-outcome score card.

    I argue that Arctic shipping will only be commercially viable when the cost of fuel gets very high and the cost of six inch thick steel plates gets very low.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Ah yes, two “commercial” vessels with specially reinforced hulls trundling along behind two Russian nuclear-powered ice-breakers. An excellent example of how “climate change” is melting ice and empowering commercial shipping in cold places.

    Not to mention the “adventurers” and “Greenpeaceniks” up there in yachts trying to force the Northwest Passage…with the assistance of Canadian ice-breakers of course.

    Steve Schapel:
    September 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
    We have seen a claim that the average temperature of the oceans has increased, without reference to the empirical measurements.

    If you are referring to the NOAA announcement, it was demonstrated that they omitted all data sources that contradicted their preconceived political agenda and only included sources that reinforced their view. It’s gotten quite pathetic actually and is just another measure of their desperation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Tel (#19): “I argue that Arctic shipping will only be commercially viable when the cost of fuel gets very high and the cost of six inch thick steel plates gets very low.”

    Now that is one priceless statement. Thanks, Tel, it’s great to have something to smile about.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Alan,

    I am also in New Zealand. Wellington region actually.

    Thanks for your heartening comments. “But truth always wins”… I am not sure whether this is true, but we live in hope.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Steve Schapel:
    September 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Steve,

    I think there are many agendas here but a think most of the motivation can be captured under a few headings.

    Really Big Money: I think that the costs of the various taxes/cap and trade/government subsidies are going to be far greater than the few % of GDP that have been predicted by some. A first, maybe, but once we pass from the “teaser” taxes (we’ll tax you, then give it back) onto what really is needed to reduce emissions by say 90%, the pool of dollars up for grabs will be an order of magnitude greater than the current global oil/gas/coal market.

    Religious fervour: the new religion of GAIA with the same pattern of sins and indulgences as before.

    Power: If you are interested in being emperor of the entire world, or at least a member of the executive elite, there has never been an opportunity even close to AGW for the opportunities it provides. Control CO2, you control everything.

    Really small money (useful idiots): A few years ago (when I still thought it worth reading) New Scientist ran an issue on the theme Will AGW Provide More Jobs for Science Journalists? The answer was yes, of course, but only if the Apocalyptic version was followed. So these journalists are just doing what they need to to keep their (low paid) jobs going. The same for academics and those working for government funded agencies. Who needs you if there is no problem? How do you get a grant to show that really, nothing unusual is happening.

    The good news is the internet. At some point (I hope) it will be evident from activity on the internet that the danger of the fraud is much greater than the supposed AGW. When that happens I think things will move quickly. It’s a thought that keeps me sane just for the moment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    How very well put and expertly summarised, David – I couldn’t agree with you more!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Anne,

    Re: the voluntary carbon ration in your earlier post. The UK government considered a similar proposal but in the end didn’t go ahead with it (for now).

    Every adult should be forced to use a ‘carbon ration card’ when they pay for petrol, airline tickets or household energy, MPs say. The influential Environmental Audit Committee says a personal carbon trading scheme is the best and fairest way of cutting Britain’s CO2 emissions without penalising the poor. Under the scheme, everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1021983/Every-adult-Britain-forced-carry-carbon-ration-cards-say-MPs.html#ixzz0Ri2ZKoRD

    Anyone who exceeds their entitlement would have to buy top-up credits from individuals who haven’t used up their allowance. The amount paid would be driven by market forces and the deal done through a specialist company


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    I’m not even sure that carbon ration schemes (post #8) implemented by private companies can be said to be voluntary. For the company decision makers maybe, but for the employees? I guess they can leave their jobs and go somewhere else, but I don’t think they’d be able to refuse to take part…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    David (#23): “The good news is the internet”

    I hope you will indulge my further pessimism. I am really hoping beyond all hope that I am wrong here. But it seems to me that there is a very great danger of complacency amongst rationalists, based on a misapprehension. I say this because I recognise the tendency to this misapprehension in myself.

    Every day, literally, I visit this site, as well as Watts Up With That, Climate Change Fraud, and at least one or two others. I find this bolsters and supports my viewpoint on this subject, and I learn a lot from those who participate in these communities. But isn’t there a danger of reaching a conclusion, based on where we personally hang out, that the internet provides a tower of strength in support of sceptics.

    On the other hand, I do not visit sites like http://www.signon.org.nz, for obvious reasons, i.e. they make me feel sick. So this sort of stuff does not figure prominently in my consciousness. But if we’re going to try and make predictions, based on what “will be evident from activity on the internet”, we have to face the fact that the activity on the internet, taken as a whole, does not provide any greater balance of reality than the activity in any other medium. There is a huge mass of alarmist propoganda on the internet.

    Don’t get me wrong… I don’t mean to devalue the incredible work being put in by people like Joanne Nova, championing the cause. Far from it. It’s just that it seems to be increasingly critical for sceptics to recognise and acknowledge the strength of the “enemy”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Alan Sutherland

    Steve

    You are in great danger and need to be saved. Pessimism, propaganda, group think – can you resist any longer? Take heart, we can save you from this fate.

    First off. You have read all the pros and cons, you know the truth. Why don’t you visit an old anti AGW film which is just as releveant today as 10 years ago http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010# Having done that and to feed your rebellion, buy a copy of the video about to be released “Not Evil, Just Wrong” at http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/home .Then join the climaterealists petition http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/ a local NZ petition started by the Hendersons, sheep and beef farmers from the hill country in Gisborne. This petition is being circulated throughout the country and I am doing my bit in Katikati and Waihi. The petition is supported by Ian Wishart (author of Air Con) and also by the ACT party. Vote ACT at the next elections as the only party to have a common sense policy on AGW.

    Look at what is to be saved by going along the ETS path. Very little in the way of CO2 reductions or temperature reductions – but at huge cost. Hope for the US Senate to reject cap and trade. Visit Senator Inhofe’s website for not only a list of dissenting scientists but also how this is just another cycle in the long history of trying to frighten everyone witless over nature. Then think about the consequences of China, India, Russia, Brazil, Africa and other countries (more than half the world) refusing to play ball in Copenhagen – how much will developed countries be prepared to pay, 5% of GDP or even 10% of GDP? What effect is the huge scam of Carbon Offsets going to have for those who sell idiotic things as described in the post above?

    The whole thing is like an overinflated balloon with multiple leaks, everyone trying to plug up those leaks only to find another two start for every one they plug up. Perhaps the Arctic will continue to gain minimum ice extent to become the “fourth lowest ice extent since records began”. How long can they get away with this? There are a hefty number of brilliant scientists still researching climate change with an open mind, and who knows what they will discover.

    Current AGW believers are actually blind to the science (a la Daemon). We will prevail. If you want more encouragement, e-mail me at sutherland-ab@xtra.co.nz


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Jo,

    Another jaw-dropping revelation, thanks. Well, I say thanks, but it’s actually sickening.

    I have a message from STAC – Save The Apostrophe Campaign: It’s unnecessary in your heading (with its pants down).

    I had trouble remembering this one until I learned the three members of the third-person singular possessive: his, hers and its. None have the apostrophe. Simple, huh?

    Love your work.

    Cheers,
    Richard Treadgold.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    That this insanity is so wide spread and growing follows logically from two principles: a word means its definition and there is no underlying reality to which the word and definition must cohere. This results in the conclusion that all one must do to change the meaning of a word is to change its definition or to change the meaning of what is said is by changing the words used. This enables the intellectual slight of hand that all one must do to change a thing, is change its name and, that if it is not named, it will not exist.

    If you think this is nonsense, it is all solidly founded on the notion that reality does not exist or that if it does exist, it cannot be known. Knowledge, as such, is thought to be a social construct. Truth, or actually “truth”, must be established by consensus which is an agreement by a set of individuals who cannot, by themselves, know anything except that which is “known” by the collective. How do they know this? Some dead white man (Kant), who they never bothered to read, said so over 200 years ago. Countless intellectual con artists have been cashing on his words since then.

    Ideas matter. Fundamental ideas matter most.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thanks Richard. Fixed :-)
    Rest assured I do know what “it’s” is short for, and I know that that phrase doesn’t belong in the title. I must suffer from the dreaded intermittent-apostrophe-blind-spot (IABS). Good luck with STAC, and please feel free to point out extra apostrophes anytime. I hate to run out of them because I used them all up. I hear there’s a shortage…

    (And seriously, I do appreciate the value of getting grammar and punctuation correct!)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    co2isnotevil

    The hype about AGW is easily explained. It’s called the Tinkerbell Effect. This is something that’s pervasive in politics. If you really, really want something to be true and you wish hard enough, it will become true. Since AGW long ago moved from science into politics, it has taken on all of the attributes of a political issue.

    George


    Report this

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Steve (#27)

    “we have to face the fact that the activity on the internet, taken as a whole, does not provide any greater balance of reality than the activity in any other medium”

    Well, I’m really comparing the situation with what it would be like without the internet. When I hear once again that “temperatures continue to soar” or “arctic ice has disappeared” I can check it out in a few minutes, in case things have changed. It does take some time to discover what sites to trust but I don’t see that it’s much different from “reality”. I apply the same sort of tests to a site as I do to any other material or to indiduals. In particular I look at responses to contrary opinions. The first time I felt quite sure that I was right about AGW was when I started to hear the “science is settled” argument and on following it up couldn’t see anywhere a clear statement of just what evidence this was based on. Instead, mainly ad hominem attacks on critics.

    The other key moment for me was Mann’s hockey stick. I remember well when I first saw it. I was very alarmed and would probably still think it was real except for climateaudit and WUWT.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Ok, David, thank you very much. I appreciate your explaining this perspective, which is a valuable one. I understand where you are coming from here, and I totally agree with you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Thanks for the ghastly story, Anne-Kit – I think.

    Voters – you DO know that you have the right to decide your own fates, don’t you?

    You can’t vote for your weather – but you can vote to decide who ought or ought not to to put you is a prison of their own design.

    Your political climate is one you CAN change – and there are increasingly more options for you to do just that.

    Joanne describes one instance of fraud living within a larger fraud – there is nothing more to the whole thing than death and destruction for everyone.

    I hope we can start to reverse this mess on the political front and say “So Long!” to people like Obama and Christine Milne and Kevin Rude and Gordon Brown.

    Thanks to journalism from people such as Joanne this is finally getting some traction to reverse course


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Brian aka capital climate sock puppet
    I agree that you can change the party in power but I doubt that it will stop an emission trading scheme. There is just to much on the table in terms of money and control for any major political party to forgo.
    The European Union’s ETS was a disaster, the costs were enormous and emissions increased but that did not stop then entering a second round.Government may change in europe but ETS is there to stay.
    In Australia I expect our main opposition party to force a few token changes from Rudd and then cave in. I really hope that I am wrong but I doubt it.
    People have equated emission trading to a ponzi scheme but that is incorrect only the greedy get screwed over in a ponzi scheme an ETS gets us all.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian Valentine

    Note that Capital Climate, when they reply to me anonymously as “Capital Climate” in their web log – demonstrate a nastiness towards me that borders on a neurosis.

    When and an “individual” from Capital Climate reponds to me (say as Steve T) – then their diatribe directed at me is toned down.

    Meaning they are too cowardly to direct their extreme distaste for me excepting under the cover of anonymity.

    Capital Climate must have a contract with Eli Rabbit to “demolish*” deniers when they appear on their Capital Climate web log.

    The web log becomes a unique form of entertainment.

    *attempt to demolish


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    #16 Thanks for the tip. I secured myself 2000000 offsets. But I might have negated some of them sine I printed my certificate. The Internet is great at reducing CO2 emissions. My offsets have not required anyone to build any thing or drive out to the country to plant some trees and I haven’t needed any Auditors to fly in from Singapore to check that my project even exists. I might have sold myself short.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    CyberForester

    I still maintain that if Governments are serious about reducing CO2 emissions they should legislate against the production of goods or services that are non-essential to life. Entertainment and recreation should just be banned. No more television broadcasts, movies, concerts, sports events. Ban the production and there won’t be any consumption. Consumers will save money instead of having to pay more by way of higher costs to cover the ETS or Carbon taxes. (That is what is seriously unpalatable to Governments about this scheme).

    And if the “greenies” want to get serious about reducing emissions, they should really get personal about it. They should reduce their own emissions to zero, simply by not inhaling or exhaling, not just for earth hour but for a more extended period. (They don’t like that idea, because they suspect that the rest of us will go back to our old ways after they aren’t here to fulfil the role of eco-tyrant).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    David Walker

    Forester,

    The scammers want to treat carbon dioxide just as most governments have tobacco; why place an outright ban on evil when you can just tax the living Hades out of its consumers?

    The context has nothing to do with solving any perceived crisis. Rather, global warming is about creating the conditions and restrictions that define who profits and how pays, on a global scale. In other words, the rich get richer, the poor and get poorer, and those of us who strive between them continue to be exploited as a resource, by force of law!

    1. Create the perception of crisis.
    2. Proffer a convenient solution.
    3. Lobby the solution into writ of law.
    4. Profit by force at the expense of the masses.
    5. Repeat.

    Look at all the crises peddled by those in power and tell me the pattern hasen’t emerged; and I have some beachfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    She is supported by data about the experience of people afflicted with lesions on the amygdale, that part of the brain central to our emotions. ,


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    [...] The top two auditors have been suspended. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] many permits, creating a glut and crash. Then the top two auditors of the European system were busted, one after the other, and suspended for irregularities. Then Europol discovered that some traders had found a way to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] many permits, creating a glut and crash. Then the top two auditors of the European system were busted, one after the other, and suspended for irregularities. Then Europol discovered that some traders had found a way to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’ve liked reading through these types of blogs. Interesting stuff! Solar energy has always been a fascination with me.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I’d like to subscribe to your pleasant RSS feeds.however i can’t find any here.Do you have fantastic RSS feeds to be used?thanks,Anna


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] each year they disagree by a few billion dollars).I covered the auditing discrepancies in September: The carbon casino gets caught with it’s pants down.Articles Tagged:  Climate MoneyThanks to Scott for the pointer on the figures for 2009 [...]


    Report this

    00