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

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



The carbon market blinks — $130b trainwreck slows

For the last five years the carbon market has been doubling year after year. But in 2009, the exponential growth trajectory paused. Point Carbon issued a report this week estimating that the world wide market in carbon trading in 2009 totalled around $136 billion dollars, which is not much higher than the 2008 figure. After years of living in a rapacious bubble, prices are about 60% below the peaks of 2008, carbon traders are starting to peel out into other commodities, and the sails are looking decidedly flat on the Maxi Yacht known as Carbon-Credits Inc.

The size of the market in gigatons of carbon grew nearly 70% over 2008, but the falling prices meant the same amount of money churned through the system and the total dollars were very similar year on year.

How times have  changed. Back in May 2009, emissions traders were feeling confident that a US market for emissions would be approved. Not surprisingly, the low carbon prices and the non-event of Copenhagen mean that carbon traders are becoming frustrated. Some are even expanding into… markets that are based on real commodities like oil, gas, gold and steel. [Reuters]

Political uncertainty has contributed to low carbon prices in the United States. The Carbon Financial Instrument contracts on the Chicago exchange have fallen to about 15 cents per tonne from about $2 early last year. [Reuters]

It probably doesn’t help much that the market is beset with auditing discrepancies, and outright fraud. The top two auditing agencies in the EU market were both suspended in the last year, and Europol discovered that some traders had found a way to collect taxes on behalf of the government and then keep the money for themselves.

In the scam, criminals set up a carbon trading account on a recognized European market. They would then buy credits tax-free on exchanges in countries outside Europe. Those credits are then transferred into the European account, and the fraudsters collect tax on that transaction, but the monies are never paid to any European tax agencies. The bogus trading account is then shut down before tax authorities can collect. [CBC Canada]

The fraud may have cost taxpayers about $7 billion dollars and in some markets amounted to 90% of the volume. No wonder the carbon market has stalled. As I have said before, there is no natural limit on a market that trades on promises, intentions, or motivations. It’s destined to be impossible to police. Despite the advertising, it’s not  free market. If we were truly “free” to buy carbon credits, hardly anyone would spend a cent on an unverifiable permit for a good they can”t use. The carbon market is a fixed market, where people are forced to buy a piece of paper or face being sent to jail, and where the “Commodity” involved is not even a commodity–it’s just a “promise”.

Remember the fastest way to create a level playing field in a public discussion of global warming is either to ask for evidence, or to just say six words: The banks want us to trade carbon. Now the $126 billion dollar figure for 2008 can be updated to $136 billion for 2009. (But note that the former figure was a World Bank figure, and the latter comes from PointCarbon, and 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 Money

Thanks to Scott for the pointer on the figures for 2009 trading.

Thanks too the whistleblower or hacker who gave us ClimateGate. We are indebted :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
The carbon market blinks — $130b trainwreck slows, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

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

68 comments to The carbon market blinks — $130b trainwreck slows

  • #
    Thumbnail

    It is only a responsible thing to do – to stop the bubble before it grows too big. I am proud that Australians led the world when Turnbull was ousted as leader of the opposition. He simply did not listen to the tens and hundreds of thousands of people like me who wrote, rang, emailed, cajoled, begged and pleaded with our senators to drop the CPRS. We have to do it all again because Rudd and Wong seem to want to present the CPRS again to our Senators in February 2010. Australians just don’t want this foisted on us. We want to protect our farmers. We want to protect our liberty, our sovereignty and our self determination.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Saint

    Seems like those who wanted a Scientist-run society back in the Age of Enlightenment have gotten their wish. And now we have corrupt scientists as a result. (This is why the founding fathers wanted separation of Church and State, because they were concerned for the Church.) Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    One day, governments will wake up and figure out that trading damages economies (lots of dollars for zero or negative real value) and that the negative externalities of trading need to be taxed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    blouis79

    It looks like the global financial crisis has put a Financial Transaction Tax firmly on the agenda of the IMF. Trader’s don’t like it.
    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/NEW120109A.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Some are even expanding into… markets that are based on real commodities like oil, gas, gold and steel.
    This goes straight to the heart of the issue. How was the carbon going to be traded? It can’t be plucked from the branches of trees, it can’t be harvested from the fields. It can’t be baled for export. It can’t even be loaded in bulk on supertankers for Somali pirates to steal.
    If anyone can point me to an explanation of the carbon trading process, I’d be very grateful. The whole idea seems as distant from reality as those house price manias that take hold from time to time. I still have vivid memories of the late 80′s boom that caught Melbourne, in which a few friends got very badly burnt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Since CO2 appears to become a bit shaky as the cause du jour has anyone noticed the increasing mention of methane as the new bogyman? I might be wrong, but it seems to be getting more emphasis as a serious threat.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    Finding time series charts of carbon markets is not easy. I can find lots of sites but they only offer useless daily values. The Chicago one does have a chart available though which tells a different story than the one above, namely that carbon euphoria died out long ago.

    I don’t mean energy sector stocks, but actual carbon credits/allowances.

    Ah, European Union Allowances (EUA) shows the same thing.

    EUA Futures have tanked too.

    Finding complete and to-the-present charts is not easy.

    The claim that “For the last five years the carbon market has been doubling year after year.” sounds like a simple lie unless it means VOLUME of trading has doubled as prices have been falling, meaning it’s a sophisticated lie that hides the fact that such doubling means doubling of the rate at which people are fleeing such markets! Yup, that’s probably it. Volume is shown on two of the charts above and indeed is rising year by year. What it means if volume goes way up as prices are dropping is that lots of amateurs and over-enthusiasts are getting in as pure-profit traders are taking their money away from them. And appreciate that declining carbon prices means greater emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Nick

    Every time, throughout history, a government gets involved in a market it is artificially influenced. Either prices move up or down, due to a lack of judgement on the suply and demand balance. The only sound judgement that can be made on the balance of supply and is by answering the question… “Is the price moving up or down”. If the price is going up demand is outstripping supply, if the price is going down supply is outstripping demand.

    When gvernemnts get involved in that formula by forcing a behaiviour with law or regulation the balance is altered. It will evetually return to balance but only after the pain of unextected events which either produce massive losses or rediculous gains. Either way you have inbalance and a failed market.

    Command economies are the best example. Mostly starvation and poor living standards are a result, but the west has thousands of micro-Economic examples as well, where bubbles develop and burst.

    What makes these numskulls any different to think they can build a market that trades air? Morons!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Justin Ert

    Is it plausible that the main point of trading carbon is to enable long and short speculation on the weather?
    At the European Climate Exchange – where you can invest and trade your carbon portfolios of hot air products, in the education section they give specific advice about how to estimate and forecast co2 production by assessing the impact weather has on your investment!
    http://www.ecx.eu/Role-of-Fundamentals
    “In general, CO2 production depends on a number of factors, such as weather (especially temperature), fuel prices and economic growth. Among these factors, weather has varied effects; firstly, cold weather increases energy consumption and so CO2 emissions through power and heat generation.”
    They go on to explain:
    “…weather could thus become a key price driver in the short term and possibly increase volatility. For instance, the combination of a cold winter and a warm summer could cause power consumption and emissions to soar, which would provide a clear bullish signal.”
    You would have thought that with the current cold snap sweeping America and Northern Europe, traders would be going potty at the thought of all the “caps” being overshot…
    To put the European Climate Exchange establishment into perspective: they were primary sponsors of the abortive Catlin expedition, and their Catlin page offers some of the most startling science I have seen:
    http://www.ecx.eu/Catarctsur
    Well worth a read.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Carbon market a $130 billion dollar disaster!, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Atheist Ranter

    They might just as well trade cigarette cards or antique bottles. Carbon Credits are just another ponzi scheme that, for whatever reason, has yet to be deemed illegal.

    I hope they all lose every fucking cent!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Colin

    Joanne, as a regular visitor to your site I want to express my appreciation for your efforts and my admiration for your energy.
    I have abandoned the MSM rags in favour of your site as a reliable source of factual information. The (sometimes) enlightened comments that accompany your posts add enormously to their value, and the peer pressure self-regulating open system seems to work amazingly well.
    As an impecunious self-funded retiree I cannot offer what I think you are worth, however I would like to ‘buy you some chocolate’ from time to time to help with expenses. But I discovered that your chocolate is only available in $US, and while I don’t mind the exchange rate, I do object to paying bank charges for foreign exchange. May I suggest you prominently display your BSB and A/C number for Australian direct bank transfers.
    Also I am happy to reveal my name and email address, but do you really need my postal address and home phone number?
    Sorry, this Big Brother government has made me paranoid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    For a more local assessment of the carbon market, one needs to go no further than the carbon sequestration companies that are publicly traded here in Ruddtopia. The “business model” is to plant trees in plantations (on someone else’s land in exchange for payment), thereby “earning” a number of carbon credits. The tree planting is accompanied by much fanfare and self-congratulation, followed by….. silence. When revisited, some of these plantations are revealed as hectares full of dry twigs sticking out of the ground (were once seedlings). Of course, when this is revealed, the company blames (yes, you guessed it) climate change. I suspect the next step will be to replant the same parcels of land with more seedlings, and earn more carbon credits, the original credits having already been traded. What a sweet deal, and when someone buys shares in these companies, they can tell themselves they are being ethical. They may even believe they are making an investment. Sad.
    PS: private land involved in these carbon sequestration plantings remains subject to a Carbon Sequestration Right which remains in force for 100 years. Apparently the world will be all fixed up by then. It is interesting to note that these companies’ annual reports do not shed light on how many hectares are under plantation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Don Griffiths

    Gosh, it’s a darned shame that all the hot air is leaving the carbon market. Now if we can just get the rest of the related climate change hot air to cool off—:o)

    Australia, the rest of us in the world who are creating more than usual amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and probably other gases due to our stress over the entire meteorological mess salute your lead and courage. Maybe the rest of us will catch on before it’s too late.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Remember the fastest way to create a level playing field in a public discussion of global warming is either to ask for evidence, or to just say six words: The banks want us to trade carbon.

    Quite so! As Canada’s National Post reported the other day “Investment banks had hoped to take advantage of climate change”

    Just makes one’s heart bleed, eh?! Strikes me that traders were counting their carbon chicks before they were hatched ;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith

    NikFromNYC,

    Thanks for the links to carbon trading charts, very helpful.
    That’s an incredible gap between the current and futures prices in Euros.
    While contango is to be expected and normal, the spread per the charts is enormous. What could explain this, given we can only expect more carbon to come onto the market (ie. no future shortages). Generally the degree of contango (in other commodities) indicates the cost of future storage. Perhaps, this is showing possibly the first “real” indication of the costs of carbon sequestration ? Alternatively, it might show that markets mandated by government are a total botch up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jim

    I hope that when this nightmare ends that lessons are learnt from it.
    The UN doesnt care if the world is cooling, heating, or standing still. Climate change nonsense has one ultimate object – redistribution of world’s wealth under the paternal eye of the UN. As Cromwell put it;
    Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So!In the name of God, go!
    Won’t happen of course. But let’s hope that we identify the next scam.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Matty

    If you had invested in the carbon market you would have to be very worried right now. And if you were Goldman-Sachs you would have noticed that the same pollies and Princes who were barking loudly about armageddon had shot around the back of the house out of sight -post Copenhagen.

    Obama is stuck with a stinker. He will be trying to herd a bunch of cats who don’t even have to listen to him, so where will the political drive come from? Noone will want to own this agenda if it won’t fly and what was raised from thin air could return to thin air very quickly. Won’t they look stupid.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    At this rate, 30 billion tons of CO2 credits may buy a loaf of bread by the end of this year.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo, I find your commentary on the carbon trading market to be intellectually stimulating, as usual. I also commend you for your boundless energy, you are a prolific writer. It will be interesting to see what happens as the carbon market collapses and the political winds shift. If the banks can’t rape the taxpayer’s wallet and the grant money slows to a trickle, the blame game will begin. If this were a small scam it could blow over but were talking about billions of dollars squandered and an opportunity lost to squander trillions more. Cap and trade is dead here in the U.S. and the politicians are running for cover. I haven’t seen voters this angry in a long time. Two prominent Democrat senators have announced that they will not run for reelection in 2010 as well as a governor from a swing state. Obama’s poll numbers are horrendous for a president at this point in his first (hopefully last) term of office. The Republican majority in the state congress in Pennsylvania is already threatening to cut off the funding for Penn State if the Mann investigation is whitewashed, a substantial financial reward and a get out of jail free card is being is being offered to Mann’s cohorts and the Department of Energy has emailed all of its employees telling them to refrain from destroying anything related to climate-gate. Judging by the sloppy, fraudulent alterations evidenced by the Harry Read Me file I don’t think these climate criminals have covered their tracks sufficiently as there are way too many loose ends. This may not be the year when the global warming scam comes crashin down but it is definitely the beginning of the end. Will Gore keep his, Oscar, Nobel and ill gotten gains? Probably. But he will be remembered by history as possibly the greatest scam artist ever.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    It helps to think about how government employees are to be paid and pensioned – the UN is a particular organisation that consumes capital – it doesn’t produce anything except nonsense. Carbon trading is how society’s parasites generate the fiat money to pay them.

    Closer to home, increasing the public sector automatically decreases the private sector, without which no public sector can carry on.

    Also realise that in a socialist system, of whatever hue, private property does not exist, hence there is no market, and no exchange of goods and services, hence no economic activity. (One might ponder over what to call a social democratic economist – idiot?).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Anna Jones

    Oh, it stinks, Joanne.
    One can only hope and pray that a great fear will grip the carbon markets.
    But then of course the very wicked and the very stupid will want blood.
    But whose? Their own?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Folks, don’t imagine for a second that the demon has been banished. I’m still getting letters back from Liberal Senators stating their commitment to “fighting dangerous climate change”. Just that they want to do this without a tax a la Krudd.

    So… the CRU saga didn’t happen; at least, according to them. Ergo, it didn’t happen, full stop.

    I, for one, will be letting them know that I do know about it and that I know that they know about it. Full credit to those Pennsylvania senators who nailed their colours to the mast and demanded accountability from the University and Michael Mann.
    I would like to think that their constituents complimented them on this action.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Keith@13

    The companies planting trees are just another version of the tax-driven agri-businesses like Timbercorp and Great Southern. All those trees planted for tax reasons, and the companies went belly-up. Investors and shareholders end up with sod-all.

    There’s a BIG lesson for any share market investor: Invest in real companies that do real things, and have no reliance on special treatment, special markets, or special tax concessions. The number of times that “special” companies on “special” terms come crashing down is something that is quite astonishing, think back over the last 20 years and try making a list. (And have a bit of a think about how many had involvements from investment bankers!)

    Planting trees, in Australia, in places where trees had not been prolific before seems to be worse than just bad. It now seems to be a significant fact in changing run-off, which in turn changes the flow into our meagre rivers.

    We started with agri-scams, which were tax-driven and made our drought (especially in South Australia) worse, now we’re shifting it into a carbon-driven (tax) scheme with the same outcome. A wonderful way to create a self-fullfilling prophecy (“oh dear we did all that stuff and climate change still means we have less water in our rivers” – yes, I know its BS but I can hear it being said). And then the scammers and con-artists running those companies will flee leaving a mess behind, while they sit in their gold coast mansions swilling Bolly and thumbing their noses at the rest of us.

    Don’t invest in companies, or people, who relay on special conditions or tax advantaged schemes!

    (Mandatory disclaimer: I have no investment license. The above constitutes an opinion, not financial advice. Neither myself or the publisher accept any responsibility for anything done by anybody after reading the above.)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Roy Hogue:
    January 10th, 2010 at 7:44 am
    Since CO2 appears to become a bit shaky as the cause du jour has anyone noticed the increasing mention of methane as the new bogyman? I might be wrong, but it seems to be getting more emphasis as a serious threat.

    Unfortunately for them, Methane concentrations in the atmosphere are stable or slightly falling now…. Sorta buggers their catastrophism;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    21Louis Hissink:
    January 10th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    …… (One might ponder over what to call a social democratic economist – idiot?).

    Howabout – Moron. As the whole concept of a Socialist economist is an Oxymoron;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    J.Hansford,

    The one complaint that seemed most troubling to me was that Arctic tundra contains tons of methane that would be released when the tundra thaws. Things like this could give them another appeal to fear which is hard to fight.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Scottar

    I don’t think CO2 is the issue anymore:

    http://tinyurl.com/y8a7euk

    Solar geomagnetic index reaches unprecedented low – only “zero” could be lower


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Plasmablast

    Hi Jo,
    I’ve read that Lord Monkton is coming to Australia in the next couple of weeks.
    I’m in Melbourne but can you tell us when and where he will be speaking?
    Many thanks in anticipation.
    Regards,
    Plasmablast


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Steve Schapel

    Plasmablast (#29)…

    I understand that arrangements are still being planned. However, I do have this information:

    Sydney – 27 Jan
    Newcastle – 28 Jan
    Brisbane – 29 Jan
    Noosa – 30 & 31 Jan
    Melbourne – 1 & 2 Feb
    Canberra – 3 Feb
    Adelaide – 4 & 5 Feb
    Perth – 8 Feb
    Sydney – 10 Feb


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Roy Hogue:
    January 10th, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Aye, true. However looked at logically(not that AGW proponents are logical or scientific), considering the warming and the melting that has occurred/supposed to occurred… methane concentrations have not risen. Once more empirical evidence confounds the AGW hypothesis…

    But of course we would need an unbiased media to report such facts.. D’ oh!;-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    The science issue i will leave to those of experience in this debate.
    My concern is, that if you live on the land ,under a roof, regardless if you own, rent ,lease,farm or mine.Built into your rates and taxes are the costs for all these fuzzy green and better for the environment programs.
    Very little is by knowledge or agreement by the public at large, as stakeholders are often now the decision makers.
    Nearly every council is screaming poverty. Ratepayers are up in arms because funds are spent on frivilous novelty programs and the important issues are being denied funds.
    One item stands out in nearly all shires, is the many attending interstate and international seminars- often refered to as gravy trips.
    What types of businessess stand to gain from the programs, ratepayers are forced to comply with, secondly who are the names and faces behind the companies that stand to benifit.

    Councils that have agreements with IPCC.
    With the climategate fiasco , and that climate change is a red hot issue and currently being debated, along with the CEO of IPCC on a matter of mismanagement, are the councils still beholden or in agreement with IPCC ,and how will this affect ratepayers.
    Remembering that local councils are the arms and legs of state government.
    Wendall Cox has a site called dermagraphia, although usa based has heaps of info on Australia, when i last looked in land mass statistics it stated that 7% land mass was private property..
    I mention this because every State has thousands awaiting housing, and the list and wait is getting longer.
    Ultimatim is who and where do we ask where all the money is going that , should be there for Australians.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Linda, some of those councils have spent ratepayers money on things like CDS’s Credit Default Swaps. In other words, they were taken in by financial-shysters and threw away public money on speculative investments they thought (or were told) were 100% safe.

    Why are local governments playing in international foreign derivative markets? It’s an insane game for any novice to play.

    When money is made from nothing – out of thin air – many people and groups are forced in a way to take big risks just to keep up with inflation. These councils were totally out of their depth, with other peoples’ money. Shameful, but the money-from-nothing system which inflates our money supply so fast almost ensures these kind of scams will catch the naive.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    Jo
    Another subject that got very little media, and the rates went up in all areas , some pastoral lease rates went up by 43%, and we in the city screamed very softly at 6 to 7% rate increase.
    Looks and sounds like we need a stop button and rethink on many issues , the only thing that comes to mind is Citizens Initative Referendum CIR.
    Jo do we not have public servants who collect a wage for carring out the wishes of the poeple, could we engage them on these great ideas the people have for prosperity in this nation.?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Apologies if this isn’t totally relevant to the thread except to explain why the rats are leaving the ship. This one is a take on Peter Garrett’s comments last week.

    If the ABC was Relevant, Part 5

    Kerry: John and Brian give us their take on the week’s events. Tonight’s guest is Senator Peter Garrett…

    Brian: Senator Garrett, thanks for joining us.

    John: Good to be here Brian.

    Brian: You gave Tony Abbott a good dose of free advice this week, didn’t you Senator?

    John: Sure did Brian. Right between the eyes. Both barrels.

    Brian: Something to do with climate policy?

    John: HIS climate policy Brian. Its wrong.

    Brian: Wrong?

    John: Very wrong Brian. If you’d care to review the latest report from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, you’ll notice that 2009 was nearly half a degree warmer than 2008. That’s a very significant and undeniable fact.

    Brian: Which proves?

    John: Which proves Tony Abbott is a sceptic and a denier and wrong, Brian.

    Brian: Any you’re quite sure of this Senator?

    John: Crystal clear Brian. Penny had a word with those UN climate chappies…

    Brian: The IPCC?

    John: The IPCC, and they gave us an exhaustive briefing on the latest scientific developments Brian.

    John: Perhaps you’d like to share these insights with our listeners Senator?

    John: No worries. Exhaustive. [Goes to blackboard.] Borrowed this off Ros Kelly. Here’s the earth, right? [Draws circle.] And here’s the earth’s atmosphere. [Draws another circle.] When the atmosphere fills up with carbon dioxide (or CO2) it traps the Inner Red radiation, the ice caps melt and we’re all stuffed. With me so far Brian?

    Brian: Inner Red?

    John: Yep. Thousands of the little buggers.

    Brian: And that’s it?

    John: Heck no Brian. There’s heaps more.

    Brian: Do tell.

    John: Well, the UN Climate chappies…

    Brian: The IPCC.

    John: Yep, the ICPP. They’d been working on this for yonks when one of them reckons: “ I reckon we’re getting warmer.” [Draws line on whiteboard.] Then another chappie says: “Yeah, and the CO2 is higher.” [Draws another line.] So…

    Brian: Add two plus two and you get…

    John: Forty Seven Brian. Climate Science isn’t that simple.

    Brian: So the IPCC just said that there was a rise in the global temperature, and it was due wholly and solely to the change in CO2?

    John: Seemed a good idea at the time Brian.

    Brian: And those were the only variables under consideration?

    John: Nothing else leapt out of the page I suppose.

    Brian: And no-one has ever questioned this logic?

    John: Just deniers and sceptics Brian.

    Brian: So, ever since then, the IPCC has been trying to control global climate wholly and solely by reducing CO2 levels?

    John: Yep.

    Brian: I suppose they’ve done their sums on this?

    John: Too right Brian. Twenty years. Millions of dollars. Ginormous supercomputers, convoluted climate models. Numbers you won’t believe Brian.

    Brian: Perhaps we won’t. Couldn’t give us a readers digest version of the mathematics, perchance?

    John: No probs. About 200 years ago, the CO2 was [writes] 280. Now it’s [writes] 390. And temperature has gone up by [writes] 0.8 degrees in 200 years. So you get the ratio of the CO2 levels, calculate the logarithm of that and multiply it by the AFF.

    Brian: The AFF?

    John: Artificial Forcing Factor. It’s in the computer. Add your birthday, carry the tens and take away the number you first thought of, and you get 3.3. Try and keep up please Brian. [Returning to whiteboard.] So the final equation looks like [writes]

    Temp Difference (Celcius) = 3.3 * Ln (CO2 new)/ (CO2 old)

    Brian: And that tells us what impact the CO2 is making?

    John: Yep.

    Brian: Any chance it could be more than that?

    John: That’s not the way climate science operates Brian.

    Brian: Pretty hot last year wasn’t it Senator?

    John: Too right Brian. Hottest since Adam was a boy.

    Brian: And CO2 did it?

    John: Yep.

    Brian: By half a degree celcius?

    John: Can’t argue with science Brian.

    Brian: And Tony Abbott is wrong?

    John: And a denier and a sceptic. Yep.

    Brian: Senator, just for a giggle, mind if we checked the homework?

    John: Go for your life Brian.

    Brian: [Takes out calculator.] And you said the CO2 level this morning was?

    John: About 390 in the shade Brian.

    Brian: And in 2009 it increased by?

    John: Almost five Brian.

    Brian: Almost five?

    John: 1.7 Brian.

    Brian: We’ll say two. And 2009 was hotter in Australia by how much?

    John: Shitloads Brian.

    Brian: Something more precise, perhaps?

    John: Half a degree.

    Brian: Half a degree. So that’s 390 divided by 388 … equals 1.0052. Natural log equals…0.0051. Multiply by 3.3 equals …0.017 degrees. Say 0.02.

    John: No Brian. Not 0.02. It’s 0.5. You’ve got it wrong – do it again.

    Brian: [Repeats calculation.] 0.017 degrees.

    John: No way Brian!

    Brian: Yes way, Senator. Even by the wildest dreams of the IPCC, that’s as much as impact CO2 could have had – as opposed to the 0.5 degree change alluded to by yourself. Any clues where the other 0.48 degrees came from?

    John: Just random noise in the numbers. Entirely plausible.

    Brian: So 97% of the measurement was noise and the rest was irrefutable fact – hmmm? No other possibilities?

    John: Probably not.

    Brian: I can think of a couple. One is that we have entered into a runaway greenhouse scenario, we’re all doomed and its been nice knowing you. An alternative theory is that CO2 has little or no measureable effect on climate and the IPCC is vocalising from their fundamental.

    John: It must be the Inner Reds.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    P Gosselin

    The Brits are going to love this headline.
    Like it’s not bad enough having to subsidise the wind energy industry,
    now the big contracts to build it are being outsourced.
    BRITAIN ORDERS HUGE €100 BILLION WIND FARMS – TO BE BUILT BY GERMAN COMPANIES!!
    http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100109-24461.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JS

    Simple Really

    In answer to a question on how recent extremely cold US temperatures gels with global warming,
    White house press secretary Robert Biggs today glibly stated that the record extremely cold temperatures affecting the USA and the whole Northern Hemisphere are caused by – “scientists will tell you” – climate change


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    The media in the UK MAY be on the turn….

    Coldest winter for decades has helped!!! Especially after met office/CRU/ said November mild winters.

    Daily Mail: The Mini Ice Age Starts here
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

    “… The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

    They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.
    This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.
    However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2. ….”

    don’t forget to complain about the bbc…..

    They are runing this propoganda:

    How the big freeze fits theories of global warming
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8447262.stm

    Complain!?!?!?!
    climate change bias:
    trust.enquiries@bbc.co.uk

    Of course last year, they Met office and CRU were saying mild winter, predicted, and no more snow,etc,etc

    NO MENTION at all of extreme weather events, and cold due to global warming…
    Of course they are trying to spin actual events to fit the model, etc….

    Rogue BBC weather reporter !!!
    Buried away in the BBC website, a rebel bbc weather man’s blog?

    Paul Hudson BBC:
    A frozen Britain turns the heat up on the Met office.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2010/01/a-frozen-britain-turns-the-hea.shtml

    ………. “The answer may well be quite straight forward. It’s likely that the all powerful and dominant Hadley centre supercomputer predicted very little chance of a cold winter, just like it did last winter, and that, as they say, was that.

    Which begs other, rather important questions. Could the model, seemingly with an inability to predict colder seasons, have developed a warm bias, after such a long period of milder than average years? Experts I have spoken to tell me that this certainly is possible with such computer models. And if this is the case, what are the implications for the Hadley centre’s predictions for future global temperatures? Could they be affected by such a warm bias? If global temperatures were to fall in years to come would the computer model be capable of forecasting this?

    If you have time, read again my article called ‘Could the sun cast a shadow on global temperatures predictions’ that I wrote before Christmas. In particular, read David Archibald’s paper, peer reviewed in Energy and Environment journal, where he discusses the prolonged solar minimum we have been in, and what happened to CET temperatures (the longest temperature data set in the world) the last time we experienced such a solar cycle, and the implications for the weather across America and Europe. …………..”

    IF on any other topic, predictions forecasts, the bbc would be all over the proponent of a theory like a rash….

    Of course their are many OTHER theories of climate, solar, ocean, cloud, oribital, etc, and the complex interactions of, which actuall have had useful predictions, back in 2007, astro physicicts wee saying 20-30 years of cooling may be possible, due to solar activity, which also explained little ice age, and mediavel warm period….

    Paul Hudson, may have even prompted the whistleblower at CRU – climate gate scandal
    This was mentioned in the emails, when they were saying they were disapoointed in the BBC, and should someone a have a word:

    Paul Hudson BBC: Whatever Happened to Global Warming
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/10/whatever-happened-to-global-wa.shtml

    And he recived something,climate gate emails and authentictaed them.
    Yet the BBC DID even begin to investigate the story?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml

    This was the month when climate gate searches on US google went from near zero (climate, automatic gates, etc) to 230,000,000. How many results would you have found on climate gate on the BBC – ZERO. NOT even Paul Hudson’s blog, where it has 2 specific entries.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peter Pond

    Speedy (7:09pm)

    LOL. If only it were true – but it is not quite Brian and John’s world view, I am afraid.

    [File this is the Wierding-Software-Box. For no good reason it appears that this comment or the next one are the last comments visible to some people on this thread. If you can't see the next comments, (it's up to at least 57 now) -- please email me joanneATjoannenova.com.au. We're trying to pin down the flaw. It may have something to do with cookies, or with Windows XP... so it would be handy to know what OS people are on, who have trouble reading this. Thanks... Jo]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I found it interesting that in the last week with the cold weather throughout the northern hemisphere, the concept of natural variability was discovered. So what is natural variability? It is so simple that even a 68 year old fart with a spreadsheet can do it. I go into details on how to do it on my web site:
    http://www.socratesparadox.com.
    Now that natural variability is out in the open, it is interesting to note that all of the years, from 1880 to 2008 fall within plus or minus 3 standard deviations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bruce,

    I looked at your site. Excellent exposition!

    Unfortunately global warmers are a community of faith, not science. I have crossed swords with a guy in another thread who argues the most absurd nonsense and isn’t a bit embarrassed. They have no shame.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Joanne,
    You say ” …The size of the market in gigatons of carbon grew nearly 70% over 2008 …”.

    Will we ever know which part of the increase, or even which part of the global CO2 market is pure fraud ?

    According to Europol (European Law Enforcement Organization), the discovery of a massive VAT fraud in the European Carbon Market (USD 7.4 Billions of TAX payers money gone) led some countries to change the VAT perception rules.

    Now, the seller pays the VAT,whereas before, the buyer was paying it. This simple step led to 90% decline in trading volume.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    Jim: January 10th, 2010 at 10:33 am Said:
    “But let’s hope that we identify the next scam. ”

    The claim that Wind Power is a source of “Clean, Green” energy is a prime contender:
    http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

    It’s currently providing 1.7% of the U.K.’s power – that’s an improvement over the last few days, when it was as low as 0.1%
    See here:
    http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm – The “Generation By Fuel Type (table)” is the one to look at.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    Speedy: January 10th, 2010 at 7:09 pm – Very funny, it reminded me of the YouTube clip entitled “Front Fell Off” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcU4t6zRAKg


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Jo,

    With CO2 slowing down you really must do a full expose on the matter of Anthropomorphic Continental Drift (ACD).

    http://minx.cc/?post=296080

    I kid thee not! Well…at least not very much…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Check out stock symbol GRN. It is a carbon trading company. Both its price and volume have shrunk substantially.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean2829

    To GregoryNo6,after reading your question on how carbon markets work I think the question is answered in your pre-amble. Perhaps a way to look at is it that in carbon markets, money does grow on trees, so long as you did not intend it in the first place.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Alfred T Mahan

    Another practical problem for the whole low-carbon/green industry is China’s monopoly of the rare earth elements that are required to manufacture things like wind turbines and Toyota Priuses.

    China has 97% of the world’s current supply of 17 metals, such as neodymium, which is essential in making the highly efficient neodymium-iron-boron magnets used in wind turbines, which need to the efficiency if they are to generate any useful power at all. China appears to be pursuing a clear mercantilist policy of cornering the market and restricting export, which will make production of things such as low energy light bulbs outside the country virtually impossible. Australia has recently prevented China from buying a rare earth mine, apparently for this very reason. There is an interesting article on the metals in the UK’s Independent at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sydney Sceptic

    I saw this posted on RC – on this address – http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=2671


    1. Demonstrate causation, not just correlation of CO2 levels relative to global temperature.
    2. Use real-world emperical evidence, not flawed computer models.
    3. Show emperical evidence for temperature rises following CO2 level increases, not before.
    4. Demonstrate that CO2 is the sole major forcing in global temperature changes, not a minor player in a much larger game, involving clouds, solar flux and CRF.
    5. Show that CO2 levels and greenhouse effect is not already saturated.

    Here are the responses, if anyone would like to review and comment. Some of this would appear to challenge the sceptic’s handbook, so I would appreciate some of the more educated people here to take a close look at this stuff and tell me how it stacks up:

    1. Demonstrate causation, not just correlation of CO2 levels relative to global temperature.

    BPL:

    Fourier, J.-B. J. 1824. “Memoire sur les Temperatures du Globe Terrestre et des Espaces Planetaires.” Annales de Chemie et de Physique 2d Ser. 27, 136-167.

    Tyndall, J. 1859. “Note on the Transmission of Radiant Heat through Gaseous Bodies.” Proceed. Roy. Soc. London 10, 37-39.

    Arrhenius, S.A. 1896. “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Phil. Mag. 41, 237-275.

    Royer, D.L. 2006. “CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic” Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 70, 5665-5675.

    Came R.E., J.M. Eiler, J. Veizer, K. Azmy, U. Brand, and C.R. Weidman 2007. “Coupling of surface temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations during the Palaeozoic era.” Nature 449, 198-201.

    Doney, S.C. et al. 2007. “Carbon and climate system coupling on timescales from the Precambrian to the Anthropocene” Ann. Rev. Environ. Resources 32, 31-66.

    Horton, D.E. et al. 2007. “Orbital and CO2 forcing of late Paleozoic continental ice sheets” Geophys. Res. Lett. L19708.

    Fletcher, B.J. et al. 2008. “Atmospheric carbon dioxide linked with Mesozoic and early Cenozoic climate change” Nature Geoscience 1, 43-48.

    W. M. Kurschner et al. 2008. “The impact of Miocene atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuations on climate and the evolution of the terrestrial ecosystem”Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 499-453.

    Lean, J.L. and D.H. Rind 2008. “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.” Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L18701.

    Royer, D.L. 2008. “Linkages between CO2, climate, and evolution in deep time” Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 407-408.

    Zachos, J.C. 2008. “An early Cenozoic perspective on greenhouse warming and carbon-cycle dynamics” Nature 451, 279-283.

    2. Use real-world emperical evidence, not flawed computer models.

    See above. For carbon dioxide rising, see

    Keeling, C.D. 1958. “The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Rural Areas.” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 13, 322-334.

    Keeling, C.D. 1960. “The Concentration and Isotopic Abundances of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere.” Tellus 12, 200-203.

    For the new carbon dioxide being anthropogenic in origin, see

    Suess, H.E. 1955. “Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood.” Sci. 122, 415-417.

    Revelle, R. and H.E. Suess 1957. “Carbon Dioxide Exchange between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades.” Tellus 9, 18-27.

    3. Show emperical evidence for temperature rises following CO2 level increases, not before.

    Google “PETM,” or check here, where a tight correlation is shown between temperature anomalies and CO2 level in the same year:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Correlation.html

    In a natural deglaciation, temperature rise does indeed precede carbon dioxide increase, because warmer water holds less CO2 and it bubbles out of the ocean. The additional CO2 then raises the temperature further in a feedback. But that is NOT what is happening now. We know the new CO2 is coming from fossil fuels and deforestation, not the ocean, through its radioisotope signature.

    4. Demonstrate that CO2 is the sole major forcing in global temperature changes, not a minor player in a much larger game, involving clouds, solar flux and CRF.

    This is a straw-man argument. Nobody competent ever said CO2 was “the sole major forcing in global temperature changes.” It happens to be the major (not the only) cause of the present global warming, but at other epochs other causes have been more important. See the Lean paper referenced above for an example of how they sort out change attribution.

    5. Show that CO2 levels and greenhouse effect is not already saturated.

    At the lowest levels of the atmosphere, it is mostly saturated–and it doesn’t matter. The atmosphere as a whole is *never* entirely saturated, and can’t be, and every level contributes to the surface temperature. Please read:

    http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Saturation.html
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/
    http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

    There were other responses, but I can’t be bothered retyping the links. Feel free to drop over to the original link and comment there are you see fit.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hi Joanne,
    You say ” …The size of the market in gigatons of carbon grew nearly 70% over 2008 …”.
    Will we ever know which part of the increase, or even which part of the global CO2 market is pure fraud ?

    I can say with 110% confidence, we will never know how many carbon permits were “real”. It’s inherently unknowable. Some of those permits are based on the notion that someone “wouldn’t have cleaned up that dirty factory”. So even if we could measure emissions from all such dirty factories say, back in 2002, there’s no way we could read the owners’ minds and squeeze out the info that they would have done, say, half a “clean” two years later and thus that 22.6Gt of CO2 was “saved”.

    Any system based on motivations and intentions is utterly unmeasurable and comes with a Billboard across the entrance saying “Welcome Crooks, Crims and Cheats”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    P. Gosselin,
    Wont do much good in a snow storm however. In Germany all their coal gens are going full tilt because there is much snowing but little wind. Maybe they will have to go back to having a coal fire in every home just to stay warm and cook. That’s progress under the green movement. It seems Gordon Brown doesn’t read his European news. He probably doesn’t read about the Chinese either. This article

    http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26570563-5005962,00.html

    shows the Chinese have little intention of making any firm committment to reduce emissions and none to allow monitoring. They probably realise AGW is a dud and are simply playing along with the idiots in power in the west. They did stand Obama up at Hopenhuggem, seemingly with much delite.

    The Brian Dawes skit on the 7:30 Report is a major shift for the ABC and should not be under-estimated. Showing Garrett as a fool is too easy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    How could a market fail that’s based on the average telephone number of Sydney? Bjarne Andresen pointed out the silliness some time ago. That requires only a basic understanding of thermodynamics.

    With only about 10% to 20% of the global “grid” showing any significant warming (as recognized by Phil Jones in 2003), a rational person might be amused by the kerfuffle; not concerned; and certainly not alarmed or duped into putting money into it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Murphy

    I read the post by Eric Redmond on the “fudge factor” code disclosed by Climategate.

    Following some trenchant emails I recently sent to the University of East Anglia, I was informed by email by a Lisa Horton, a spin-doctor for the university, that the the purpose of the code is to estimate the effect of climate variables (temperature, humidity, precipitation etc) on crop yields.

    I anticipated receiving a lie in response to my criticism, but I never thought of that one.

    Now not even teh spin-doctor talks to me. I must have offended some nice, honest, innocent person.

    Five gets you ten that the Russell inquiry is a whitewash.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Barry Woods

    And yet the polticians do not OR will not GET IT

    All my comments to conservative blogs get removed, if i get to close to the bone…

    Email complaint to my MP:

    To: mayt@parliament.uk
    Cc: CameronD@parliament.uk
    Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:32 PM
    Subject: BBC Bias Man made Climate Change vs climatate change (natural) – the Blue Blog bias

    Dear Teresa

    As my MP I would like to draw you attenbtion to my following comments below:

    I posted a comment on the blue blog today:
    All my other comments disapear, apparently because the conservative blue blog does apparently not entertain debate about man made climate change.

    Attached is some screenshots of comments I have posted to the blue blog, that have been removed by moderators.
    I have asked for an explanation why? As I am on topic, not rude/offensive and provide verifiable link/facts in legitimate/credible sources.

    I have posted these screenshots, comment on other forums, to demonstrate the tories response to debate on man made climate change.
    Not climate change – no one disputes that is what the planet does.
    But man made climate change due to CO2 emmisions, less than 0,0003% of the atmosphere.

    As far as the chinese, russians, etc are concerned the ‘science is settled’ man made climate change due to man made CO2 is a totally discredited theory. See below what Pravda was saying a year ago. Think how this will impact on domestic/international politics, please.

    The article below was BEFORE the climategate scandal, and the hockey stick graph shown to be a total fraud, and all the other damming relevations in the Climate Resaerch Unit data/email/code whistleblowing hack. Imagine what they will think of it all now.

    Blue Blog: Comment by Barry Woods on January 12, 2010 at 12:05 pm
    http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/12/28/adapting-to-a-dangerous-and-changing-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-12230

    The russians, chinese, indians believe the below, from Pravda (bbc seems to have swapped editorial style with 70′s pravda)

    It doesn’t matter what gordon, david, nick, obama, zac, say….
    What are we going to do send the gunboats over when they say NO to co2 control, their is no science behind it.

    Just as the Saudi diplomats did, days prior to Copenhagen – due in part to the climategate scandal (CRU/IPCC data-email-code whistleblowing)

    Pravda – of all the ironies last year

    The russians have VERY good scientists, especially astro physicists, and they know about cold, and fear it’s impact much more than fictional man made global warming.

    http://english.pravda.ru

    11.01.2009 Source: Pravda

    The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

    Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

    Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

    Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

    In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, “… must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted… the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate.”

    During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ‘anthropogenic global warming’ (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

    The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film “An Inconvenient Truth.” The ‘hockey stick’ graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

    The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

    In 1999 the British journal “Nature” published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia’s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

    The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

    The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

    The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

    Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

    The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.”

    The russians, chinese and indians KNOW that AGW theory is useless. They don’t say much diplomaticaly about it, beacasue they are going to milk the west for billions, build their economies at the expense of the west

    —– Original Message —–

    To: mayt@parliament.uk
    Cc: CameronD@parliament.uk
    Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:38 PM
    Subject: BBC Bias Climate Change – the Blue Blog

    Does the Blue Blog welcome debate:
    Or is the Conservative party as biased as the BBC with respect to man made climate change (AGW theory)

    Three times I have attempted to make an on topic, non offensive factual comment, with verifiable links: and they are removed

    I have had numerous comments removed without explanation:
    From the Climate cHange and energy section:

    http://blog.conservatives.com/index.php/2009/12/04/ask-me-your-questions-on-the-copenhagen-summit/

    Complaint just made via the moderators:

    To the moderator/website manger.

    Will you give me the courtesy of explaing why my comments to this section (climate and energy) are being removed.. (you have my email address)

    As far as I can see they are on topic, not rude/offensive and contribute to the debate..

    You have my email address.

    PLease respond.

    I have made a complaint to my (tory) MP and D Cameron…

    Additionally any attempt in stifling debate about man made climate change in blogs, is self deafeating… Far more people will see my comments (if as I can only belive debate is not welcome here) as any comment deleted here…

    Can be posted any where else, with a complaint why will the tory party not debate this…

    The internet is 2 way…

    Telegraph and Mail are at least open to printing this type of debate in their comments sections…

    ie:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6958093/Climate-change-the-true-price-of-the-warmists-folly-is-becoming-clear.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6969589

    One of my comments that diasappeared:

    “Surely facts can’t hurt the tories:

    Try again…

    “The UK does not contribute 3% of CO2

    Natural CO2 is 5% of green house gases..

    Total of man made CO2 is 3% of that 5%

    UK man made CO2 is 3% of the 3% of the 5% whole…

    95% of ALL green house gases is water
    vapour…
    ALL green house gases make up 5% of the atmosphere, ie the rest is nitrogen, oxygen, etc,etc

    So AGW theory, depends on man’s contribution to 0.0003% of the atmosphere.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I was informed by email by a Lisa Horton, a spin-doctor for the university, that the the purpose of the code is to estimate the effect of climate variables (temperature, humidity, precipitation etc) on crop yields.

    Yup! Sounds like a lot of crop to me!

    Talking to such people is like talking to a rock.

    We need a way to get climategate explained to the public, calmly and without exaggeration – just the facts as the emails and some of the other documents show things to be. But our side has no big-bucks benefactor and the AGW believers have all the money (ours).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Re: Joanne Nova: January 10th, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Joanne, it is an insane game for anyone to play that does not have inside information. As you state, there is no intrinsic worth to the paper, and the only way to make money is for someone else to lose big time. And the only players making money (outside of organized crime) are those that are making the news on AGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Den första länken handlar dock om den kollapsande marknaden i Australien. [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] The Carbon Market Blinks — $130b trainwreck slows [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Russ Walsh

    I’m astounded at the extent to which an entire industry – ‘carbon trading’ – has been built on the global warming fraud. By now anyone who has Googled ‘Climategate’, or ‘Lord Christopher Monckton’, or viewed Youtube’s great parody ‘Hide the Decline’ will be fully aware of the fact that global warming is history’s biggest fraud. But this isn’t the first time in history this sort of thing happened. In 1930′s Germany an entire industry was created to dispose of that country’s ‘problem of the day’. Jews. At the time the same sort of people as the global warmers, or “bedwetters” as Lord Christopher eloquently describes them, began promoting the aryan race, vilifying and murdering Jews in the process. There is no such thing as an aryan race, of course, but, just as in the current era, an ignorant and ill informed citizenry simply went along for the ride. Germany’s Nuremberg Laws were the 1930′s equivalent of today’s carbon trading laws. Great profits were made building ovens and manufacturing Zyklon B and barbed wire. All based on a fraud. Humans seem to get themselves into periodic messes like this. Invariably, there is always a bad ending.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    Dear Russ Walsh, there was an Aryan race. But they were from
    the sub continent. They invaded India, but were lighter skinned than the indigenous Indians. Hitler did get it wrong eh? No historian. LOL.

    Roy Hogue, I admire all your posts. You mentioned Methane. Sure
    thing. SBS TV ads. “If CO2 emissions ceased tomorrow, methane
    emissions from cattle and sheep are enough to continue Global warming. SAVE THE PLANET – eat Veg not meat!” Fair Dinkum.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Carbon markets “work” in Europe. $133 billion dollars turned over in 2009, lining profit sheets of bankers, auditors, accountants and government [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

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


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bush bunny

    What can I say: Carbon credit trading is losing value. Because
    no cap ‘n trade or Emissions Trading Scheme, the UN IPCC Copenhagen Summit proved to me at least, there were social, political and economic reasons for trying to prove AGW and CO2 emissions were changing the climate to the disadvantage of some undeveloped countries, rising sea levels (untrue) and wanting industrialised countries to pay for the mismanagement of their environment, the social deprivation of the people, corruption in government etc., because capitalism was disadvantaging these countries from climate period.

    Anyone with a bit of nous or political nous at least can see the
    real reason for wanting to cut AGW CO2 emissions or tax them accordingly. When CO2 is not in anyway responsible for the above things nor effecting the climate. Pollution yes. But confined to the immediate area not global.

    The IPCC reports were based on a mere 1000 years. We have to take in millions of years. See that we are a Ice Planet, we are enjoying a warm interglacial period where we have thrived. CO2 emissions do not create climate change. So why tax them? Sustainability fair enough. But when you get a country like Angola who is enjoying their oil industry, and they can’t provide
    clean water to their citizens and they die in thousands from cholora and malaria. ?????


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Very first, I’d prefer to give thanks to you for this enlightening post. Secondly, I’d prefer to question wherever I can discover a lot more info concerning your post. I arrived right here via Bing and can’t discover any other related web websites on this subject. Just how do I subscibe for your weblog? I’d prefer to adhere to your updates as they arrive along! I had a query to question but I forgot what it absolutely was… anyways, thanks to you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Ray Stiff,

    When you comment on any given thread you can choose to receive email notification of additional posts on that thread.

    Otherwise in the top left corner of every page there is an orange icon that will let you subscribe to RSS feed.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] for 2009 trading.Thanks too the whistleblower or hacker who gave us ClimateGate. We are indebted http://joannenova.com.auThe views represented in articles republished on the this site reflect the views of the original [...]


    Report this

    00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>