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



Global Carbon Trading System Has “Essentially Collapsed”

When is a free market not free? When it doesn’t do what the bureaucrats wanted it to “freely do”. There is a message from this-pale-shadow-of-a-global-carbon-free-market and it’s telling us that carbon (dioxide) should be free, as in $0, no cost, no fee, no tax.

CDM’s (Clean Development Mechanisms) were set up in 1997 with Kyoto. It is separate from the EU market, and is one of the only “global” carbon markets.

 

Global carbon trading system has ‘essentially collapsed’

The UN clean development mechanism, designed to give poor countries access to green technologies, is in dire need of rescue

, environment correspondent

The world’s only global system of carbon trading, designed to give poor countries access to new green technologies, has “essentially collapsed”, jeopardising future flows of finance to the developing world.

Billions of dollars have been raised in the past seven years through the United Nations‘ system to set up greenhouse gas-cutting projects, such as windfarms and solar panels, in poor nations. But the failure of governments to provide firm guarantees to continue with the system beyond this year has raised serious concerns over whether it can survive.

Governments have a last chance to restore confidence in the system when they meet in Qatar this December to discuss climate change. But few participants hold out any hope that they will agree to toughen their 2020 emissions targets, which are scarcely even on the agenda. Instead, governments are focusing on drawing up a new climate change treaty by the end of 2015, which would stipulate emissions cuts for the period after 2020.

But the recession and Eurozone crisis …  has combined to bring about a collapse in the price of UN credits, from highs topping $20 (£12.50) before the financial crisis to less than $3 each today. At such rates, many potential projects are not commercially viable. Financiers and project developers have abandoned the market in droves.

Failing government intervention the EU scheme is toying with a death-spiral:

The Australian:  UN-sponsored international offsets, also known as Kyoto credits or by their formal name of certified emission reductions (CERS), plunged below 2 for the first time last week in the wake of further disappointment in international climate talks.

HSBC said even if agreement could be reached on key abatement targets and the future of Kyoto, the thorniest problem was what to do with a massive overhang of 13 billion units given to Russia, Ukraine, Poland and other central and eastern European countries. It said these had the potential to cancel out any emission reductions agreed to in the next phase of Kyoto, and would further drive down carbon prices.

“After almost seven years of talks, no obvious solution has emerged that can please the ‘hot air’ holders,” the HSBC report said. And it feared that if any agreement was reached, it would likely be symbolic with so many loopholes that its impact would be effectively neutered.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance said the situation had become so dire that its forecast for the long-term price of Kyoto credits had been cut to just 1.10, just enough to cover the marginal cost of operating, monitoring, verifying and issuing CERs out to 2020. Despite this, there are a further 100 million credits in the pipeline that will be issued before the end of this year.

 

No one should have to pay to emit a harmless plant fertilizer that — in a worst case scenario –  produces a small amount of warming — warming that most likely would save more lives than it would cost.

 

H/t Climate Depot, Redmond @ Mises, and Scott the energy trader.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (78 votes cast)
Global Carbon Trading System Has “Essentially Collapsed”, 9.4 out of 10 based on 78 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9qvkbm2

206 comments to Global Carbon Trading System Has “Essentially Collapsed”

  • #

    It puzzles me why there is so much support for cuts in man-made CO2 emissions. After all, about 96.5 percent of annual emissions come from natural sources, and only 3.5 percent of annual emissions are man-made.

    Surely, even if all man-made emissions were cut — no more cooking, driving, shipping, manufacturing, heating or air-coditioning — that would result in at best minuscule reductions in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Why would anyone bother if not to tax the air we breathe?


    Report this

    11

    • #
      ExWarmist

      The alarmists use the idea of residence time to create the threat. The UN IPCC uses a residence time in excess of 100 years, when the bulk of previous science was approximately 7 to 10 years for human CO2 emissions. They needed a long residence time to enable accumulation of human CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.

      A short residence time just means that human CO2 emissions are irrelevant to the climate.

      Link here


      Report this

      00

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Recent research has residence times at about 3 years.

        You can work this out for yourself in a rough way by looking at how much mass is accumulated by your favorite lawn or tree over a year, it’s quite a lot.

        That of course is not accounting for the biggey, which is the CO2 flux between oceans and atmosphere.

        It dwarfs a lot of other considerations.

        KK :)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Error alert.

          The foot in mouth award for posting without checking to KK:

          “Recent research has residence times at about 3 years”.

          Of course as you show, most Research puts residence times inside 10 years and more like 7.

          KK


          Report this

          00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I suspect, Walter, that the problem is that human emissions of CO2 have pushed up the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm.

      But maybe you haven’t been keeping up with this sort of thing.


      Report this

      11

      • #
        Sonny

        Hi John,
        Are you aware CO2 has been many times higher in concentration in the past? And that below 200ppm plants do not survive. Or don’t you keep up with this sort of thing?


        Report this

        10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Yep, but we need to work harder at it. The sooner we can get it up over 500ppm, be better.

        More bio-growth = more world food, (so long as we don’t waste that food on totally unnecessary bio-fuels.)

        All the developing countries need nice shiny new COAL fired electricty generation.. NOW !!!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Hi JB,

        It’s a nice assumption you have there – it’s round, it’s smooth, and kind of velvety to the touch.

        But is is real???

        Go to residence time – why does the UN IPCC choose the most outrageous estimate of residence time in the scientific literature, and ignore the vast bulk of papers that suggest a much shorter timeframe for CO2 residence time???

        You really need to dig into the facts and stop relying on the superficial reporting of the MSM and the alarmist blogs.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        JB you should be more precise in your statements.
        We have helpfully assisted with the raising of global plant fertiliser levels above the completely-made-up “stable pre-industrial level” of 280ppm CO2, and it is only in the last 30 to 40 years that industry has surpassed the ocean as the main contributor. The ocean would have been outgassing some CO2 due to natural warming cycles[pp24+26] anyway.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Who Else

      The answer is in the piece above. It’s about money, or more accurately, the redistribution of it to the developing world.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Redistribution to the developing world is the cover story. The flow of money is from the productive middle class to the rich elites. The poor miss out.

        I.e. the wealth transfer is from those who have ‘wealth’ to the powerful.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Paul Bell

    No worries, here in California we are going to start up our own carbon trading offset scheme market thing.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddwoody/2012/05/17/california-carbon-market-to-generate-billions-but-wont-end-budget-woes/

    Surely it will work this time.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Paul, please try to keep it confined to California. I don’t want it creeping into the Midwest. Your state government seems to think it is possible to tax yourselves into prosperity. I don’t think it’s working.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Robert Campbell

      Mitt Romney has been advised to cut back on the references to Greece and just say, “If we don’t cut spending and get regulation and entitlement programs under control, we’re going to end up like California.”

      As with much other good campaign advice, Romney’s ignored it…


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Since Russia got their CERS for free, as a bribe to join up Kyoto 1, they could still make a profit.

    Unlike our government which got in too late and won’t get anything out of the scam.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John

    I am curious if there are any low carboon projects in these poor countries that this fund, that has been up and running for quite sometime, exist or are in place running and powering some small village in Africa somewhere? I know the US has some Wind Mills and Solar arrays (albeit more Bankrupt crony companies then actual productive plants) and I see and here about all the wind mills in the UK. And I will add that the rich land owners are getting richer in the UK off the cash payouts (via higher electricity prices that hit the lower income brits the most) to have them on their properties. Not that the US is not doing the same by subordinating DOE loan debt so that big Dem doners like Mr Kaiser (and his VC firm) in the Midwest. Anyway never see those planet saving project in these poor countries so I was just curious.

    John, you cannot use “JoNova” as a username here for obvious reasons. So I’ve changed it. – Jo


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Ian Hill

      John, I recall in the film “The Great Global Warming Swindle” a house somewhere in Africa had been fitted with a solar panel or two and the occupants could use the electricity generated to run the stove or refrigerator, but not both. What an insult to these people.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        It wasn’t a stove. It was a light or the refrigerator.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        John Brookes

        I grew up in a house in South Africa where there was no electricity. You used a kerosene fridge. I was very young, but I don’t recall feeling insulted.


        Report this

        01

        • #
          Ian Hill

          Wrong use of the word Johnny. It’s like dropping a 5 cent coin into a charity box when the collector can see you have $10 in change. Western society has the $10 electricity generator and they expect the Third World to be grateful for the 5 cent version.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          dr ian hilliar

          Yeah, I remember the Kero fridge and the kerosene lamps in the cottage down the bottom end of the natal coast, near the Transkei border. Worked really well, but of course, burning kero liberates co2. Now you’ve emraced the sacred green church of recycling, I am surprised you admit to ever burning fossil fuels. Or farting. So I am deliberately being insulting, because you have no understanding of what it means to be a poor black African , who is being told , by someonr with hot and cold water on tap and who takes an electricity supply for granted,-”you cant burn coal, or kero, because it is bad for the planet”. Try googling the website.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          dr ian hilliar

          sorry-didn’t proofread .The website John Brookes should go to is “Eco Imperialism”, or he could buy the book of the same name.”EcoImperialism, Green Power, Black Death”, by Paul Driesen. If you grew up in RSA, or anywhere in Africa, JB, you really should read this book. It will give you something much more cogent to feel guilty about than your carbon footprint. Seriously, it is fascinating reading for anyone on Jo’s wonderful blog. “the wonderblog”?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Streetcred

          You must have been really poor, Brooksie … I spent some years working there and never met anybody in that predicament unless they were unfortunate enough to live in the townships. That gets me to this, despite the abject ‘poorness’ of the black people there, I never met a single one at work that never came in with polished shoes, shirts whiter than white, and freshly pressed. And then I look around my countrymen here and I want to puke, too busy with their snouts in the trough.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          JB Say…

          I grew up in a house in South Africa where there was no electricity. You used a kerosene fridge. I was very young, but I don’t recall feeling insulted

          When you were very young the CAGW crowd were screaming about man made global cooling and the next Ice Age.

          How times change – the content moves 180 degrees but the scare (and the lust for control) remains.

          The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

          From Mencken

          BTW: You were not insulted – no one was providing you with a GAP between what they were asking of you, and what they had for themselves.

          The insult arises because the greens ask the poor to remain poor while they indulge themselves in the very trappings of wealth that they happily deny others.

          Gore, Pachuri, Flannery, et al.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Chris M

          This explains a lot JB, a yearning for simpler times perhaps? But the sensible people of those times were yearning for more mod cons to relieve themselves of the unavoidable household drudgery without the benefit of electricity. My own grandfather, an Aussie farmer born around 1900 in a family farming lineage, once said that the best innovation he saw brought in was running water inside the house.

          And despite the lack of electricity John, you still had a healthy and comfortable lifestyle as a boy, didn’t you? There was no need for your family to burn dung for cooking was there? Have a heart JB, the third world poor need cheap and reliable electricity, currently meaning from fossil fuel generation. A derisory solar roof panel will not suffice.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      ExWarmist

      The Kyoto based CDM has been used to build up to 44 large scale Coal fired power plants in China and India.

      Go figure – perverse results aplenty.

      Mundra Ultra Mega Power Project, also known as Tata Ultra Mega, is a proposed 4000 megawatt power station currently in the early stages of being financed and built. It is one of ten power stations referred to by the Indian government as Ultra Mega Power Projects, which the government aims to have built by private sector companies before 2017.[16] The project will consist of five units of 800 megawatts (MW) each, using coal imported from Indonesia and elsewhere.[17] It is located in the port city of Mundra in the state of Gujarat in India.

      Tata Ultra Mega will sell electricity to utilities in five Indian states–Gujarat, Rajasthan and Maharashtra in western India and Haryana and Punjab in northern India. Sales will be through 25-year take-or-page Power Purchase Agreements.[18]

      As of March 2008, projected costs cited by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a division of the World Bank, were $4.14 billion, implying a 25-year levelised tariff of INR2.26 per kWh.[19]

      According to the IFC’s rationale for supporting the project, “The project is the first private sector power project in India to be based on the energy efficient supercritical technology. The use of this technology in this plant will help reduce the average Green House Gases (GHG) emissions of Indian power plants per unit of electricity generated in the country. Based on the new technology and other measures being taken by the company, the project will meet the IFC social and environmental Performance Standards. This is also IFC’s first financing of a supercritical plant anywhere in the world.”[20]

      Link here


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Energy Tribune Oct 30, 2009 and quoted in SPPI blog article by Robert Bryce, WSJ.COM 8/5/12

        With coal-fired power plants as the primary source, India’s electricity generation sector space has been dominated by the two state run big companies NTPC (for generation) and BHEL (for equipment manufacturing).

        However, a gradual shift is taking place with private players looking to play a bigger role in the country’s electricity generation business. Today, India has about 150,000 megawatts of electric generation capacity. By 2017, the government hopes to more than double capacity to some 330,000 MW, of which some 30% could be owned by private power producers. And while India’s stance toward private investment in the electric sector has changed, it’s stance toward coal has not, and that fact will have a major effect on any attempts at reaching a global consensus on carbon dioxide emission limits.

        When it comes to electricity, India lags far behind much of the rest of the world and it aims to change that fact. That message was made clear by none other than Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian academic who chairs the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In July, Pachauri asked reporters “Can you imagine 400 million people who do not have a light bulb in their homes?” And he went on to explain where India was going to be getting its future power: “You cannot, in a democracy, ignore some of these realities and as it happens with the resources of coal that India has, we really don’t have any choice but to use coal.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ross

          That is very interesting rockape. Well worth keeping on file. To think Pachauri said that just before Copenhagen –hypocrite!!
          I read in recently that Japan is going close down all of its nuclear plants which supply 30+% of its electricity. Will they follow Germany and build coal fired plants?? Time to buy coal company shares maybe !!


          Report this

          00

      • #
    • #
      John

      Jo – sorry about that not sure why I did that. It must have been a Brain F..rt.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    John

    Walter Schneider

    September 16, 2012 at 1:42 am · Reply

    It puzzles me why there is so much support for cuts in man-made CO2 emissions. After all, about 96.5 percent of annual emissions come from natural sources, and only 3.5 percent of annual emissions are man-made.

    Surely, even if all man-made emissions were cut — no more cooking, driving, shipping, manufacturing, heating or air-coditioning — that would result in at best minuscule reductions in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Why would anyone bother if not to tax the air we breathe?

    Mr Schneider, Let not also forget that CO2 as a trace gase in the air is only about (see below breakout)

    Air contains roughly 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_each_gas_is_in_the_air#ixzz26YUwoBvO


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rob JM

      CO2 being only a trace is a dumb argument!
      The physics actually indicate the opposite.
      There is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more has very little effect.
      The first 30ppm is estimated to absorb 50% of the energy in the CO2 spectrum.
      Double to 60ppm = 75% absorption.
      Double to 120ppm = 87.5% absorption.
      Double to 240ppm = 93.75% absorption.

      Its based on the beer/lambert law.
      Each doubling absorbs half of the remaining energy in the spectrum.
      Of course IPPC made a high school error and confused absorbance with absorption.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gbees

        It’s not really about the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere it’s about it’s warming effect and whether or not the feedback is positive or negative. The evidence doesn’t point to positive amplification. So the amount of warming caused by CO2 is minimal. There is no empirical scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing CAGW.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Athelstan.

    Bloomberg New Energy Finance said the situation had become so dire that its forecast for the long-term price of Kyoto credits had been cut to just 1.10, just enough to cover the marginal cost of operating, monitoring, verifying and issuing CERs out to 2020.

    Not good enough.

    This monstrously lunatic idea [The UN clean development mechanism] wants killing off totally.

    A UN ponzi scheme, designed by the ‘masters of the universe’ – which made billions for the investment bankers and scurrilous dogs like Pachauri – we gladly and hopefully look forward to in the very near future to the day carbon emissions trading ceases forever.

    Developing nations, must be allowed to burn fossil fuels, something those loons in the UN-IPCC are loath to allow [can you believe it?]. What we must do in the west, help with know-how and education to enable these poorer nations to produce cheap energy and thus free people from a harsh subsistence living.
    It [cheap energy for the third world] is in the Wests’ own interest to encourage ‘third world’ nations to access an energy rich future – the proposed UN-IPCC ‘green future’ means an eternity of enslavement, poverty and deprivation for undeveloped nations.

    The end of UN carbon emissions trading – is good for the underdeveloped countries, it re-opens the door to a real possibilities, cheap energy and a prosperous future for the ‘south’.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bite Back

      What we must do in the west, help with know-how and education to enable these poorer nations to produce cheap energy and thus free people from a harsh subsistence living.

      Perhaps first we need to teach them that the UN isn’t their friend!?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Manfred

      Well said!

      As societies become more developed and sophisticated, something enabled by the supply of reliable, plentiful and cheap energy, the birth rate declines to below replacement value. Isn’t a low population part of the Gaia-Green credo?

      The trace-gas rip off has to stop.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gbees

        Nations which have access to abundant cheap power become wealthier and people have discretionary income which they can give to charities or real world environmental issues. If you’re struggling to feed, clothe and house your kids you don’t have any discretionary income and don’t really care about the environment. The sooner developing counties can access fossil fuel power sources the better.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Being as the underdeveloped countries often burn all sorts of crap to create basically no energy and heaps of real pollution, allowing the building of modern, efficient, near zero polluting, coal fired power stations would almost certainly lead to a reduction in pollution in these countries. And don’t forget, once they have a decent supply of electricity, they would need to buy things like kettles, stoves, water purifiers, fridges… a good boost for the world manufacturing economy (well, India’s and China’s, since they make a large proportion of the world’s cheaper domestic stuff)

      And if China’s economy gets a boost, so does ours..

      Allowing developing countries to develope is a very good way to stimulate the world economy !


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Geoff Sherrington

        AndyG55
        Do you likewise feel that over the last few centuries, the volume of CO2 that went into the air was more related to global population than to the sudden advent of big coal burning power stations one Thursday in August 1950? Or whenever some claim without much evidence that man-made CO2 suddenly started to cause a global temperature increase?
        As for carbon credits, a philosophic view is that they will fail, because they fail the age-old test of willing buyer, willing seller and benefit to both parties.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          cohenite

          Indeed Geoff, population increase is the elephant in the room with CO2 increase since every human breathes in air with a concentration of CO2 of 0.04% and breathes out air with a CO2 concnetration of 0.4%, a 100 fold increase.

          Some calculations are here.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Cohers, you are right, but not for the facetious reason you put forward. There are too many people. Its a shame that some cultures are totally wedded to big families.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Ian Hill

            Once I counted the number of breaths I took during parts of a run and it was 774 in 1541 seconds, or a bit over 25 minutes. This means I was breathing out almost exactly every two seconds. At rest it is about every four seconds. Therefore during the period of exercise (actually over an hour) I was doubling (at least) my CO2 output. The annual output by humans would be much more than shown calculated in the link.

            Then there are all the animals …


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Then there are all the animals …

            And then there are all the plants that also produce CO2 — all of them…

            I guess a place like the moon is the only way to get out from under the horrer of CO2.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            plant life emits CO2 at night.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            I wasn’t being facetious John; the population issue is dovetailed with AGW by AGW supporters along with a host of other doom and gloom concepts like peak oil.

            There is a strong strain of misanthropy in AGW and one reason for that is the simple fact that more people emit more CO2; this is why we continually hear the notion of a sustainable population; in Australia greenies like Glenn Albrecht think the sustainable population is what the aboriginal population was before European arrival.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            ExWarmist,

            I think you may be wrong here.

            I assiduously don’t leave many comments when it comes to Science as I prefer to mainly learn from them, and if I do say something, it displays my ignorance on Science matters.

            Having said that, where you say n your Comment:

            plant life emits CO2 at night.

            I always thought that plant life was benign at night.

            The light from the Sun first thing in the morning is what triggers plant life into action.

            With the onset of that first light, then all things green (plant life, that is) begin the process of taking in the CO2 from the atmosphere. The carbon in that CO2 is then sequestered in the plant, the stems, the wood, etc, and the reverse cycle is that Oxygen is given off.

            With the onset of Sunset, that process is then turned off.

            If someone might actually help me out here, I hope I have this right.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bob Malloy

            Tony From Oz;

            “plant life emits CO2 at night.”

            When light is not available, i.e. when it is dark, they do not have an energy source for photosynthesis, and so cannot fix CO2 and produce O2, but of course they must continue to respire to stay alive (and hence continue to produce CO2), so they become net producers of CO2.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Please John, don’t keep us in suspense. Pray tell your “solution” to the global population problem. We really want to know.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Thanks Bob,

            See why I am sometimes reticent to leave Comments as more often than not, I’m incorrect. However, the one real thing that comes from that is that I actually do learn something, so thanks again.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            Twodogs, the solution to overpopulation is to improve the status of women. Educate them and employ them, and give them equal rights, and soon you’ll have a falling birthrate. They’ll still want kids, but they’ll want other stuff as well – so fewer kids.

            Of course its not that simple, but that is what needs to be done.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            cohenite

            the solution to overpopulation is to improve the status of women.

            A sensible comment from John; will wonders never cease!

            Now duck down to Sydney John and convince our Muslim citizens of the virtues of your position.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            Cohenite says…

            A sensible comment from John; will wonders never cease!

            Now duck down to Sydney John and convince our Muslim citizens of the virtues of your position.

            A bit of a death sentence?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I always thought that plant life was benign at night.

            Since I seem to have started something: the complete picture is this.

            As long as they’re alive plants carry on metabolism and this burn hydrocarbon compounds and produce CO2 + H2O. When they have enough light, green plants consume more than enough CO2 to be net CO2 sinks or net O2 producers, depending on how you want to look at it. But all plants, like all animals produce CO2 all the time.

            I started my academic career as a forestry major so I had to study biology. This is the first time I’ve ever had a use for it.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          AndyG55

          Population, energy expansion.. it all equals more CO2 in the atmosphere

          This means that plant growth will be stronger and more resilient and less thirsty.

          The rise in population and energy use actually INCREASE food supply

          Darn! .. how could anyone have planned it better !!

          Now if only the catastophists would STFU and let the world get on with it, everything would be better for everyone.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    Yes, Gov. Moonbeam 2.0 thinks he’ll get $16-$18 a ton out in Cali.
    Bwuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    This is the same genius who bet the state budget on investing in the Facebook IPO.
    Good luck with that.
    Bwuhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bite Back

      If you live in California it isn’t quite so funny. :-)


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Bob

        if you live in california then you are funny, and I don’t mean funny in the ha ha that was funny way, but funny in the abnormal brain way….


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Bite Back

          if you live in california (sic) then you are funny, and I don’t mean funny in the ha ha that was funny way, but funny in the abnormal brain way….

          If I was to take this literally then you would get nothing but boo hiss from me. Some of us in California still have our heads screwed on facing straight ahead down the right road. We may be out numbered but we are here. :-(


          Report this

          00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      You’re kidding, right? I hope you are. Say it ain’t so, Joe.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    u.k.(us)

    Re: the graphic in the post.
    I know what an American dollar looks like, but not an Aussie dollar!
    Al Gore’s “intertubes” have let me travel the world, but I am missing the culture :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MadJak


    “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. “

    -Margaret Thatcher

    ’nuff said.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bite Back

    Rest in peace and good riddance.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      MadJak

      Bite Back,

      Unfortunately this sort of thing has a Zombie nature to it. Just look at our carbon tax – how many times was it killed off by the contributors to the economy and it just kept coming back?

      These schemes are Zombie schemes devised by communists and are pushed and supported by people with who have about as much capacity of independent thought as the Zombies in the film Zombieland.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      I say, Bite Back, that’s a bit severe hoping for an RIP for me just because I have a bumper sticker. It replaced one that was “If you can read this sticker, then I have lost my trailer.” When I had a Roller, it used to be “My other car is a Rolls-Royce.” Nobody wanted me dead for these. My mate once kindly towed a broken down Toyota full of aborigines about 50 miles into Kalgoorlie, with a short rope. His bunker sticker was “Land rights should be equal rights”.
      These are not capital punishment stickers.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Apoxonbothyourhouses

    “No one should have to pay to emit a harmless plant fertilizer“. Love that line of thought / explanation. May I borrow that expression when attempting to explain to the misinformed?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      No, because it is such an annoyingly assinine thing to say.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert Campbell

        Why, because green plants don’t need or use it?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        JB Says…

        No, because it is such an annoyingly assinine thing to say.

        In response to Apoxonbothyourhouses who said…

        “No one should have to pay to emit a harmless plant fertilizer“. Love that line of thought / explanation. May I borrow that expression when attempting to explain to the misinformed?

        JB you are quite transparent – it is precisely – annoying because it is true.

        Now be honest – did you torment plants as a child, and now as an adult you harbour desires to destroy the vegetable world by cutting the CO2 concentration in the Atmosphere?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    handjive

    Urging Indian government to reject the recommendations by CDM Executive Board, CSE (Centre for Science and Environment) says they are not only bad for poor developing countries, but also negate global efforts for fighting climate change.

    India should reject CDM Recommendations, urges CSE
    Saturday September 15, 2012
    (Via Tom Nelson)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The only reason the Carbon Trading system was set up was to give a front or excuse or a reason for governments to move large amounts of cash around to locations of their choosing.

    A little bit undemocratic and a little bit shifty and a good enough reason for all Australians to begin insisting the Australia should -

    GET OUT OF THE UNITED NATIONS NOW!

    KK


    Report this

    10

    • #
      John Brookes

      I thought that the carbon trading scheme was designed to be the most efficient (i.e. cheapest) means of reducing emissions.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        JB:
        boosting the living standards in underdeveloped nations leads to smaller families. As life expectancy increases the incentive to have a large family to ensure 1 child survives to adulthood decreases.

        Supplying cheap power helps considerably. light and water are now become readily available, clearing smoke from the hut which saves the woman’s lungs. Water at a tap saves hours of walking to collect it, and clean heat means that animal dung can be used as fertiliser, raising crop yields. More food reduces the need for famine aid.

        Of course the other way is that of Pol Pot, and involves the use of a sustainably harvested wooden club. This seems to be the preferred method of most greens, who think Africa and Asia are overcrowded. Check out the population densities of European v African countries if your inclinations run the potty way.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Oops, that was supposed to go in after 4.1.2.

          But while I’m here I point out that it was designed by the UN, and look at their record.

          Anyway the cheapest method of reducing emissions in Australia would be building new black coal fired stations, closely followed by closed cycle gas fired ones. The least effective and most expensive are the ones our stupid government is forcing on us.


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Sonny

        Hey I heard that too and I totally agree with this, along with every other government department catch phrase. Are you also a fan the new “clean energy future”?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Robert Campbell

        Didn’t you mean the method most readily manipulated by rent-seekers?

        You’d have fit right in at Enron.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        JB says…

        I thought that the carbon trading scheme was designed to be the most efficient (i.e. cheapest) means of reducing emissions.

        Do you still think that?

        The point of the carbon trading scheme is to provide a permanent mechanism for the ongoing wealth transfer from the productive class to the rent seeking parasite/predator class through capture of an inelastic, tightly coupled proxy for human energy use.

        Acquiring monopoly rights for the trading of carbon by the banking sector allows for continuous profits for the banking sector and their owners. The flow of money is then used to co-opt the legislative and regulatory processes to ensure that it never ends.

        Do you think that the creation of a world wide “commodity” market bigger than the fossil fuel industry – once established – would be allowed to end?

        No CO2 emissions will not be allowed to go down across the world – they will go up, and up – as has happened.

        You are naive and need to remove your ideological blinkers to allow yourself to see the truth.

        The carbon trade is hostile to the common people of the planet.


        Report this

        00

  • #

    The problem with this dates all the way back to the original Kyoto Protocol. At the time, it seemed altruistic enough, because people had no idea of the scale of those emissions, and I’ll get to that later.

    Now, what has happened is that (some) people have become fully aware of that scale and seen just how lucrative this really could be.

    Those Annex 1 Countries (40) and especially those 23 Countries who have to pay all the costs of the other 152 Countries were directed by Kyoto to set up an ETS to pay for those 152 Countries costs, and the CDM was one of the mechanisms for redistribution of that money.

    All altruistic back in 1997 when no one was aware of that scale.

    Now, CO2 trading sees money being made by everyone associated with it. Traders making money at the buying, and the selling part, and others as well.

    But what has now happened is that Governments (as a whole) HAVE become aware of that scale, and are now hungrily eying off that immense income for their own purposes.

    True, the CDM may work, as companies invest in green schemes in those Annex 2 Countries, but again, all they get back is Credits to offset their own emissions in their own Country, and then, those credits can be bought and sold, again making money for everyone associated with it.

    Governments, well they just rake in the money, and, (now) use that for their own purposes. They issue credits at the start of the year, knowing full well, they get back that same number at the end of the year, adjusted each year, and all they are relying upon is the price of the CO2, so their income is guaranteed, and all they need do is issue bits of paper and take the money.

    The scale. Well just ONE large scale coal fired power plant will need to have 19 Million credits, and at the current $AUD23, there’s $440 Million.

    Each year. ONE plant.

    See now how this was always going to be manipulated.

    Tony.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      TFO says…

      The problem with this dates all the way back to the original Kyoto Protocol. At the time, it seemed altruistic enough

      It amazing what can be achieved by the marketing department, public relations, and effective communication…

      It is a pity that the framers of the UN Convention on Climate Change, and it’s enabling organisation, the UN IPCC, – aren’t Altruists.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Winston

    Who said you can’t make genocide profitable?

    You’ve got to hand it to the political and banker classes (hereafter known as “the Parasite class”), they’ve managed to briefly convince people to make them powerful and wealthy beyond all measure (respectively) out of misguided altruism. In the meantime pretending to care about the 3rd World emerging economies while simultaneously consigning them to energy poverty (by forcing them into energy generation that could not sustain base-load requirements for any progress in their economies beyond the subsistence level. And for the piece de resistance, forcing commodity prices high enough (through biofuels) to make feeding yourself for the world’s poorest an increasingly impossible task, and therefore tipping large swathes of these people, ever so gently mind you, off the economic precipice into oblivion. C’est magnifique! Bless their little cotton socks.

    Can we please have Nuremberg Mark 2, mom? Can we, huh, huh, Pleeeeeaaassseee? I’ll be really good, I promise!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    dp

    The problems with carbon trading are… oh hell, where to start.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    not rapid enough to beat the collapse??

    13 Sept: Phys.org: Researchers develop rapid method to measure carbon footprints
    The methodology should help companies to accurately label products, and to design ways to reduce their environmental impacts, said Christoph Meinrenken, the project’s leader and associate research scientist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and Columbia Engineering. A new study, published online in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, describes the methodology.
    The project is the result of a collaboration between the institute’s Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy and PepsiCo, Inc…
    The key component was a model that generates estimated emission factors for materials, eliminating manual mapping of a product’s ingredients and packaging materials…
    Al Halvorsen, senior director of sustainability at PepsiCo, said, “The newly developed software promises to not only save time and money for companies like PepsiCo, but also to provide fresh insights into how companies measure, manage, and reduce their carbon footprint in the future.”…
    http://phys.org/news/2012-09-rapid-method-carbon-footprints.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Interestingly the CDM was the subject of an Indian newspaper investigative report this week:

    Carbon credit fraud: How big firms faked green to mint gold

    “Of the 60 CDM projects that I have evaluated, there appeared not to be one that actually reduced emissions,” admitted Soumitra Ghosh of North Eastern Society for Preservation of Nature and Wildlife.”

    All 60. Well, I guess if you try to sell something as unverifiable as a tonne of CO2 emissions you’re going to get the scam artists out in force.

    And this presumably is what Treasury meant by “abatement sourced from overseas”. Sigh.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Bob Massey

      This fraud is similar to Australian cattle properties de-stocking to make even more money from Carbon Credits… Is there anyone sane in our political system at the present?

      How can anyone logically say a property is worth more if nothing is done with it? However under our current legislation it’s more valuable for Carbon credits. The insanity in just mind numbing.

      The solution would be for Australia to become a 3rd world country so we too can reap the rewards from this utterly stupid system. If the Greens and Labor have there way it will be and very soon.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    and, if the carbon derivatives, helped along by bernanke’s QE3, get to zap away at the speed of light, ACTU might wonder why they supported CAGW/CO2 tax/ETS against their own members’ wishes:

    14 Sept: Business Spectator: ACTU urges crackdown on high-speed trading
    According to the newspaper, the union is urging a crackdown on the lightning-speed trades on the Australian Security Exchange, saying they put at risk the nation’s $1.3 trillion in superannuation savings, as well as encouraging the kind of market manipulation that cheats ordinary investors.
    The union’s call comes in the wake of financial services minister Bill Shorten expressing concern over high-frequency trades, and industry super fund leaders warning of its potential risks…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ACTU-urge-crackdown-on-high-speed-trading-pd20120914-Y4U3R?OpenDocument&src=hp32

    fast and furious:

    14 Sept: Bloomberg: Jonathan J. Levin: Mexican Bourse Plans to Resolve Data Delays Before Market Opens
    A surge in trading, marked by a record number of orders, exacerbated the delays, Ibarra said. Trading volume on the benchmark IPC index of 35 Mexican stocks has climbed 22 percent in the past week after the bourse implemented a new trading engine on Sept. 3, luring more so-called high-frequency traders to the market. High frequency traders use computers programs to automatically execute fast-paced trading strategies.
    The new trading engine itself, known as MoNet, operated without incident yesterday, Ibarra said.
    MoNet is about 300-times faster than its predecessor, with the capacity to handle handle about 100,000 transactions per second, according to a presentation distributed to journalists on Sept. 11…
    “If we had the previous trading platform and we’d received the number of transactions we received today, the system wouldn’t have held up,” Ibarra said. “In fact, there would have been a recess,” he said, referring to a temporary stoppage of trading…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-14/mexican-bourse-plans-to-resolve-data-delays-before-market-opens.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: WSJ: Matt Jarzemsky/Chris Dieterich: Weekly U.S. Stock-Trading Volume Lowest So Far This Year
    The Dow industrials and the S&P 500 are both on the brink of multiyear highs, but volumes across U.S. markets this week hit their lowest levels of the year…
    Electronic trading, which rose throughout the past decade to account for more than 80% of volume in 2009, appears to have plateaued, according to the Tabb Group…
    “My sense is that you’ve lost the confidence of a generation of retail investors,” said Julius Ridgway, investment adviser at Medley & Brown in Jackson, Miss…
    “It’s very, very strange to have a market up 100%, and you haven’t seen marked inflows. Instead of being exuberant, people are thinking that, if I ever get back to even, I’m getting out,” Mr. Ridgway said…
    http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120817-712124.html

    15 Aug: Australian Financial Review: Crack down on high frequency trading: fund managers
    Michael Smith, Bianca Hartge-Hazelman and Stephen Shore
    “This market is farcical, it’s a joke,” Clime Investment Management managing director John Abernethy said. “I’ve been in the markets for 30 years, but I can’t even be bothered to watch throughout the day now.” …
    http://afr.com/p/business/companies/crack_down_on_high_frequency_trading_CSA9PgK9WGQJp9sgngTF7K


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    16 Sept: UK Daily Mail: Nick Craven: Families facing £2,000 bills for green heating ‘that does not work in Britain’Some families in ‘affordable homes’ said their electricity bills last winter were so high they had to choose between heating and eating
    Millions of pounds of public money have been spent installing a ‘green’ central heating system that residents claim doesn’t work properly – and that has made their heating bills four times higher than expected…
    The so-called exhaust air system works by sucking heat from waste air leaving the house and pumping it back in to provide heating and hot water.
    But if it does not raise the boiler water temperature enough, an electric immersion heater kicks in, sending bills rocketing.
    Government grants were spent on the all-electric Swedish NIBE systems but experts say they are wrong for most British homes, which are not as well insulated as those in Sweden.
    Heating expert Geoff Morgan, of Rodney Environmental Consultants, has inspected homes in the UK with NIBE heating and said: ‘In Sweden, very little heat escapes through walls, doors and windows, so more is available to be pumped back in.
    ‘These systems are just not very suitable for your average British home when mains gas is available – it’s just not going to be economical.’
    One housing association in St Neots, Cambridgeshire, is considering legal action after claiming that it was ‘mis-sold’ the systems, which cost about £6,000 each…
    Another in Runcorn, Cheshire, recently spent £145,000 ripping out 69 NIBE sets and replacing them with gas boilers.
    To be eligible for public money for new housing from the Government’s Homes and Community Agency, housebuilders have to follow its Code for Sustainable Homes, which urges low-carbon solutions. But residents have reported problems on at least 15 estates from East Anglia to Orkney, and various Facebook sites have been set up by disgruntled householders…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203899/Sustainable-energy-Families-facing-2-000-bills-green-heating-does-work-Britain.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Pat,
      If you whip back through your several blogs above, you will find a number of people in high places with names that sound German in origin.
      Back in the late 1970s, we collected membership lists of anti nuclear mutual agitation societies and attempted a global distribution based on sound of name. It was not very scientific, but the results were similar, same epicentre.
      It’s almost as if there was a training school some decades ago from whence activists, carefully chosen, often very bright, were assisted into high places to form cells around the world. Some people I know are using linkage type programs (like Prof Wegman showed to Congress) to join the dots. A few names are coming to the fore, but it’s unwise to release them yet.
      Stephan Lewandowsky, if you are reading this, feel free to pick it up as a conspiracy. My name sounds more British than yours, don’t you think?


      Report this

      00

      • #

        I have seen the hypothesis that the whole enviro madness was a cunning long term plot to bring down the west, begun by the NKVD later KGB. If so, it has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          There are more threads than that.

          Environmentalism has multiple fundamental causes – there will never be an statement of a single cause for the existence of the Environmental movement that is accurate.

          BTW: There are genuine environmental concerns, and there is real pollution (Lead, Mercury, etc) however CO2 is not a pollutant.

          Nuances…


          Report this

          00

      • #
        John

        Geoff Sherrington

        September 16, 2012 at 3:54 pm · Reply

        Pat,
        If you whip back through your several blogs above, you will find a number of people in high places with names that sound German in origin….

        Groff thank you for this tidbit if info. I have always believed that the really goal is 1) prove that Gov’t's can create Jobs via Green Tech as to prove that Collectivism can work and 2) that there is to many people in high places around the world who continue to push this AGW scam to be a conicidence.

        IMHO – The goal has always been about tying us all together through a global tax scheme. I also believe the knew the had a 30ish year window to pull this off before the PDO and AMO (El Lino and La Nina) flip and we headed back into the cold phase like in the mid to late 1940′s – Mid to Late 1970′s. Remember the Ice Age scare?

        My biggest concern now is that the Carbon tax schemes become to intertwind with the rest of the economy. I have always said follow the money a for example is here in the US we have a illegal Drug problem. Could the US solve the problem yes. Can the afford to strip out of the economy the underground economy that the Drug Trade has created no. To many Jobs at stake and there is to much money that is put in the hand of people in urban area’s that would have no other way of buying those $300 pair of shoes. Prostitution is the exact same problem.

        THe crabon tax is much more dangerous since it would allow a proof for the UN to show a success story of central top down control of the world. Or as Bush Sr once said a One world Government.

        As Geoff Noted go ahead and add me to your list. IMHO you are one of them.
        Stephan Lewandowsky, if you are reading this, feel free to pick it up as a conspiracy. My name sounds more British than yours, don’t you think?

        Sorry for the Typo’s

        John S


        Report this

        00

      • #
        John Brookes

        You need to get someone with intelligence and energy, like Naomi Oreskes, to document the history of the environmental movement in the same way that she did for the “skeptic” industry.


        Report this

        01

  • #
    MaxL

    Jo, I love the image associated with your link via Climate Depot.

    It shows quite clearly how the local inhabitants have benefited from the massively expensive technology as shown in the background. I guess before the windmills were erected this poor farmer had to plow the field by hand, without the aid of the oxen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sonny

    This is horrible! We need to ensure that we can keep helping 3rd wold countries adapt to climate change. Otherwise how are we going to continually oppress these people and ensure they remain in fuel and food poverty?!

    The population problem won’t simply resolve itself.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The population problem won’t simply resolve itself.

      Actually, it will. In the non-developed and under-developed countries, having extra babies is an insurance policy against future uncertainty. So many are lost to disease and accident, that it always pays to carry a few spares as long as your meagre food supplies can stand it. As life improves in these countries, and infant mortality rates decline, there is less incentive to create new children, and more incentive to invest in those you already have. As more young men and women survive to working age, they then invest more time and effort in supporting their parents and siblings, and less on building a large dependent family.

      The indigenous populations of most countries in the West, are now stable. Any population growth there may be, comes from immigration from the developing countries.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Sonny

        Maybe, but my masters say we are over populated and that 500 million is ideal.
        Would you all please just die? Thanks


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          I appreciate where you’re coming from, Sonny.
          And if you can turn a buck while you are at it, all the better! Ted Turner would be proud of your misanthropic philanthropy.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Ted Turner suggested 200 million was ideal.

          After all the psychopaths at the top of society don’t want a lot of useless eaters consuming their precious resources.

          Real people like Ted Turner demonstrate their success and natural superiority by marrying Hollywood actresses such as Jane Fonda.

          No-bodies like you and I should just get use to our position in the gutter while the Ted Turners of the world spend their magnificent lives contemplating the finer things of life.

          Be thankful that you haven’t been turned into something useful like fertilizer.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    sophocles

    Why bother with more “carbon markets?” We’ve already got some: the international coal, oil and natural gas ones. Those markets acually buy and sell tangible items. The UN “carbon markets” are more of the blind, nonsensical “markets will solve everything” economic approach which, like CO2, doesn’t work
    as predicted.

    These “markets” are merely another means for speculators to suck more money out of the economies
    of participating nations into their own pockets. They are not trading in intangibles—not real
    contributions to wealth—they do not create wealth (except for the successful speculators!).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    Jo said:
    “No one should have to pay to emit a harmless plant fertilizer …”

    No, we should be paid for emitting a beneficial plant food …


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    It’s been said before, I’ll say it again:

    No matter what the carbon price is, it’s still too much to pay for nothing..

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    inedible hyperbowl

    Summarizing -
    CAGW is a scam
    Carbon market is a scam based on a scam (a derivative scam?)
    Carbon tax is scam tax (tax on those who are not part of the scam).
    Given the current energy pricing as a direct/indirect result of CAGW means that people have less money to invest in a derivative scam.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John

      Totally agree. Carbon markets are a total scam and the problem is that in some countries (mostly the EU) and states and now OZ they have invested money from legitimate funds (pensions mainly) in the hope that they would be able to get every country on board with the SCAM. Now think of all the businesses that have sprung up to support the Scam (GE for example builds Wind Turbines) and many others to include Government Motors and the failed attempt at building an electric car for a market that does not exit (Volt). The problem for us normal blokes is that Government and certain very powerful people (Gates, Sorros, Pickens, etl) have tied up so of their capital (money) from public pension funds that they cannot escape no matter what the evolving science is saying. Which is that it is a natural cycle? And as Joe Bastardi has pointed out we are headed for a new cycle. I think this explains why they have ratchet up the rhetoric so much. If you think about in there world we have to act now and it is already too late. Ask yourself why – and the answer is obvious (my background is Marketing) and whenever I here this kind of language my alarm bells go off especially considering fossil fuels will continue to grow in usage around the world. Heck even Germany has thrown in the towel stating that “that whatever happens regarding global warming will not be significant enough to affect our country….” translation the Scam is up bring on the Coal and Gas power plants ASAP….which tells me they are more worried about cooling and not warming. What data are they looking at?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    Regarding CO2 emissions:
    Lord Deben (John Gummer) et al urged Ed Davey (then UK energy minister) to impose a maximum emissions limit on power generation of 50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour (kWh),

    The Grauniad quotes Professor Gérard Liger-Belair et al from the University of Reims Champagne-Ardennes who estimated estimated that an average 75cl bottle of champagne produces 100m bubbles and releases 5 litres (5000 grams) of carbon dioxide.

    Is this bad news for followers of the Church of Latter Day Socialists?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Yeah, here in Oz we’ve got this carbon tax, and the price of carbonated soft drinks has gone through the roof. No really. I’m not just making this stuff up, it really is the end of the world.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Sonny

        You are right John,
        How funny that all those alarmists got worried about a small rise in the cost of living!
        Almost as ridiculous as getting all alarmed about a small rise in temperature.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Especially since they can’t even show a credible rise in temperature.

          I think the backlash will soon be ramping up.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sonny

            Yes they can, all the adjustments made on raw data have the full backing on the government, courts and all other powers which determine “credibility”.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Yes they can, all the adjustments made on raw data have the full backing on the government, courts and all other powers which determine “credibility”.

            Credibility is like facts. Majority opinion and even the weight of law can’t make something stay so when it just isn’t so. Otherwise the world would still be flat. People slowly learn that they’re being screwed and they react. Remember that even the Soviet Union fell when its own soldiers realized they just couldn’t justify to themselves the order to fire on their own people and refused to do it.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Nearer 5 grams than 5000, Rockape


    Report this

    00

  • #
    General Zod

    Yes that one’s always baffled me too. CO2 makes up 0.039% of our atmosphere. Assuming that the 96.5% of natural CO2 emissions are entirely benevolent, kind and considerate, that leaves 0.0013% of evil gas to turn our lands to deserts, send the seas crashing over us and boil us in our own skin. Sounds unlikely but the precautionary principal must prevail at all times. So I’ve recently bankrupted myself building a 1200ft Bacofoil ark in my garden and I’ve been closely studying the Kevin Costner documentary Waterworld. I’ll be fine.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      jaymam

      As the amount of evil gas increases, the trees and grass will grow faster. When they die they will create soil faster.

      The sea will absorb more evil gas and change its PH to closer to neutral than alkaline. Marine annimals will grow faster and die and sequester the evil gas in sediment at the bottom of the ocean.
      Where’s the downside?


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] Jo Nova says that the global carbon credit system has essentially collapsed [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    When is a free market not free?

    When it is not free for all.

    It has long been clear to me that most of the people talking of “free markets” haven’t a clue what they are talking about. There are, indeed, many “markets” which make up “The Market”, which is a unit.

    Every action within any one of those small m markets affects the Big M Market to some extent.

    Each and every action by government is a corruption of The Free Market.

    If there is no government, history shows us that organised criminals will manage The Market.

    So, there is no such thing, never has been, and never will be, as a Free Market. Those who speak of “free markets” at any level of the economy are speaking in relative, not absolute, terms. Most of them clearly do not know this.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      The operative meaning of the word free is “voluntary”. I.e. in a free market people engage in the voluntary exchange of goods and services. For this to work, there must be honest and “free from interference” price discovery mechanisms. It is the manipulation of prices that is at the heart of market rigging by central planners and their current instruments of choice – the central banks.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    yet another push for the Min for Goldman Sachs in the MSM today:

    Turnbull firms as preferred leader
    The Age-1 hour ago
    MALCOLM TURNBULL has stretched his lead over Tony Abbott as the …
    Turnbull twice as popular
    Sydney Morning Herald

    when i click “news” on google’s homepage, i get the Newspoll “Labor back”/Newspoll grouping at the top of the page, with 5 thumbnail pics under the grouping, 2 Gillard on left, 1 Turnbull in the Centre?? and 2 of Abbott on the right. the Turnbull pic is big close-up, full-frontal, smiling head shot.

    from The Age: “The latest Herald/Nielsen poll shows 63 per cent of all voters prefer Mr Turnbull as the Coalition leader, compared with 30 per cent for Mr Abbott.
    A breakdown shows that in the past three months, support for Mr Turnbull among Coalition voters has risen 4 points to 53 per cent while Mr Abbott has fallen 5 points to 45 per cent, giving Mr Turnbull an eight-point lead.
    Among Labor voters, Mr Turnbull remains very popular, with 73 per cent support compared with 19 per cent for Mr Abbott.
    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/turnbull-firms-as-preferred-leader-20120916-260kj.html#ixzz26g1IX7H2

    as an “informal” voter, i have no horse in the race but, as a sceptical poll-watcher, the above simply stuns me.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Oh dear, nobody loves Phony Tony anymore! No one gives a pinch of poop about the Carbon Price either!

    The oncoming El Nino summer should see lots more see that AGW is real and is here now!

    When will you lot wake up?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Dylan

      Part of Waleed Aly’s feature in today’s SMH:

      The trouble is that in our digital world, there is always something to oblige. Anyone can Google their prejudices, and there is always enraging news to share with others. Entire online communities gather around the sharing of offensive material and subsequent communal venting. Soon you have a subculture: a sub-community whose very cohesion is based almost exclusively on shared grievance. Then you have an identity that has nothing to say about itself; an identity that holds an entirely impoverished position: that to be defiantly angry is to be.

      Reminded me that almost every blog, such as this one, exist only because of angry minorities.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Ted O'Brien

        Dylan, only cranky people get angry.

        This blog is maintained and supported by rational people who see the need to publish the prevailing errors in our atmospheric “science”.

        That need arises from the cost of the “solutions” demanded for this false “science”.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Dylan,

        You bet I’m angry. There’s plenty of very good reason to be angry. It’s both reasonable and just to get angry over being lied to, cheated and generally screwed by your own government, not to mention many others.

        My identity, however, has nothing to do with my anger. Rather my anger is because of my identity as a free man and a critical thinker. I was angry long before I discovered this blog and if necessary I’ll be angry long after it’s gone again.

        You who can’t understand what’s happening to you need to get angry. And do it before it’s too late.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Roy

          He reminds me of the person in this quote that somebody put up a few weeks ago:

          ” If you grow older without getting grumpy, then you haven’t been paying attention”.

          I don’t think he paid attention during science classes.

          KK


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Sonny

      Maxine,

      When will you wake up to the fact that climate change is a billion dollar industry that is more concerned with profits than with maintaining scientific integrity.

      Oh that’s right. Never.

      Keep waiting for. H


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        You could almost forgive Maxine if she was actually profiting by it, because at least that would be being clever, if not exactly moral. Unfortunately for poor Max, she is just a deluded troll who thinks she is on a mission to save the planet, and will no doubt miss out on the bucket loads of taxpayers dollars being siphoned into the pockets of multinational corporations and investment banks who are milking it for all it’s worth. By the time Max catches on it will be time for the bubble to burst, and she will be among the little schmo’s who end up with egg on their face and not a cracker in the bank.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      John Brookes

      They’ll never wake up Maxine. They are the dwarves near the end of The Last Battle by C. S. Lewis.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        ExWarmist

        JB…

        Do you like lies? You certainly cuddle up close to them.

        Try looking up what Ammann Et al 2007 link here and then reading this

        The problem is that Ammann knew full well that the data in his Supplementary Information (SI) contradicted the results in his 2007 paper. The SI was withheld for years allowing the fake results to be used in the UN IPCC reports.

        Casper Ammann is still lionized by the alarmists as a credible climate scientist – no identification of fraud – no sanction applied.

        How do you explain the incapacity of your belief community to (1) identify fraud, (2) correct it.

        Given that incapacity – why should I or anyone else join your belief system?


        Report this

        00

    • #
      NigeW

      An El Nino summer?

      Really, Maxine?

      How much are you willing to bet (real, genuine, hard earned dollars) on that?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Maxine says…

      Oh dear, nobody loves Phony Tony anymore! No one gives a pinch of poop about the Carbon Price either!

      The oncoming El Nino summer should see lots more see that AGW is real and is here now!

      When will you lot wake up?

      So El Nino causes CAGW belief – I would agree with that – 1998 was a very good year of CAGW belief.

      However reality trumps belief – do you have any reality within your CAGW belief system that you can demonstrate empirically.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    Malcolm Turnbull is firmly hitched to the AGW wagon.

    I could present an argument for a tax on energy. But I don’t even have to stop to think to know that my argument against this tax would far outweigh it.

    While I do respect Malcolm Turnbull, I very much fear his leadership at the present time.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      catamon

      While I do respect Malcolm Turnbull, I very much fear his leadership at the present time.

      Ted, i wouldn’t worry about it too much. The Fiberal party room hates Malcolm in much the same way that the ALP Caucus hate Kevin.

      Too many entrenched idiots in the Fibs like Bernardi for Malcolm to get a leadership spot before the next election.

      I think that Hockey (economics buffoon), Julie Bishop (serial ministerial / shadow stuffer up of all things she touches), and Malcolm will be the contenders late this year.

      Hockey and Bishop unite to block Malcolm. Then, party divides over who is least worst choice out of the two left, (LOL!) and its actually Morriscum who gets the LOTO gig as compromise candidate with Bishop now his “Loyal Girl” as deputy LOTO. Expect them to run hard on BOATS BOO!!!!!

      Would love to see Bishop get the gig though, just to see her get demolished in detail by the ALP front bench women.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Winston

        I wouldn’t read too much into it, Cat.
        Still plenty of time for Labor to stuff up some more, and by the time we hit the economic S-bend some of the general population may actually wake up. The polls are flattering, and your false dawn is just that- false.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          catamon

          The trend is your friend Winston. Ok, maybe not yours……


          Report this

          00

          • #
            memoryvault

            POSSIBLE ELECTION OUTCOMES

            ETS = Emissions Trading Scheme
            RET = Renewable Energy Target (20% reduction in CO2 by 2020)
            MBP = More Boat People

            Gillard versus Abbott (or just about anybody else).
            Abbott (or whoever) wins.

            We get an ETS, an RET and MBP.
            The CSIRO and the BoM continue to practice voodoo science, the ABC continues to be a propaganda organ for Marxist/Green doctrine, the likes of Lewandowsky continue to be funded to produce pseudo-psycho-babble, and An Inconvenient Truth continues to be shown as ‘Gospel’ in our schools.

            Rudd versus Abbott.
            Rudd wins.

            We get an ETS, an RET and MBP.
            The CSIRO and the BoM continue to practice voodoo science, the ABC continues to be a propaganda organ for Marxist/Green doctrine, the likes of Lewandowsky continue to be funded to produce pseudo-psycho-babble, and An Inconvenient Truth continues to be shown as ‘Gospel’ in our schools.

            Rudd versus Turnbull.
            Anybody’s call but it doesn’t matter who wins.

            We get an ETS, an RET and MBP.
            The CSIRO and the BoM continue to practice voodoo science, the ABC continues to be a propaganda organ for Marxist/Green doctrine, the likes of Lewandowsky continue to be funded to produce pseudo-psycho-babble, and An Inconvenient Truth continues to be shown as ‘Gospel’ in our schools.

            .
            Now, who should we barrack for?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            ExWarmist

            MV has correctly ascertained the socialist/marxist culture that has captured the Senior Executive Service of the Australian Government, and that the political divisions in Australia are over fake issues that do not make a difference to the acquisition, maintenance and execution of power, control and extractive rent seeking by the powerful few over the mostly powerless many.

            It’s an uncomfortable truth that freedom is a myth

            If you are allowed a choice – it’s because it is meaningless.

            Try exercising a choice over a meaningful topic – i.e. use an honest form of monetary exchange – and see what happens?


            Report this

            00

        • #
          • #
            Winston

            I think you will find, Cat, that it is only Newspoll that is quite so favourable (and out of step with the others), with the rest are pretty much flat lining, much like the current PM.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        catamon

        Now, who should we barrack for?

        Simple

        Gillard run ALP Govt. Regardless ETS and the like, they do policy better than the waste of space that is the alternative.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Winston

          Gillard run ALP Govt. Regardless ETS and the like, they do policy better than the waste of space that is the alternative

          Nobody does satire quite like you, Cat.

          How’s that medication going, anyway old fella? Any dystonias, facial ticks or hallucinations?

          By that last response, I think we need to ramp up the dosage. The little voices in your head sound like they’re becoming a bit persuasive.


          Report this

          00

  • #

    Wow oh wow, and I don’t mean that in a good way! Staggering loss of Arctic ice:
    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png


    Report this

    00

    • #
    • #
      • #
        Winston

        It’s unprecedented, I tell ye! The Ice Age cometh! Repent all ye sinners! The Good Lord sends his frozen hand to smight all those who fail to heed His word and bask in the warmth of His goodness. The end is nigh, you devil spawn, so prepare ye for the Day of Judgement for your everlasting souls!


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Winston

      It is true that some of us are born to greatness, Maxine, while others have it thrust upon them!

      I hereby elect you, fearless Maxine, to take a small but select detachment of alarmists to the summit of Mt. Everest. Your mission there will be to establish the last vanguard of humanity against the horrifying rising sea levels threatening our species caused by the melt in the Arctic. Our only hope, Maxine you brave soul, is for you to wait there with your band of heroic and enlightened men and women in anticipation of the inevitable. Once the last screams of the disbelieving masses have died down, having drowned in the calamitous anthropogenic global flood, it will be up to you to save the species by procreating with your fellow travellers to produce the first post-apocalyptic humans to populate our fragile, damaged planet.

      The fate of our species in your hands, Maxine. Godspeed and God bless you, because you are our last and only hope!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      John Brookes

      I looked a few days ago, and thought the annual increase had begun, but it has declined again since then.

      Don’t worry though Maxine, as the inmates will tell you, we are still coming out of the little ice age…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        catamon

        as the inmates will tell you, we are still coming out of the little ice age…

        Hang on John, i thought we were supposed to be going into one and the temp record be damned? :)


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Crakar24

          Can i ask one question? Its a serious question so i expect a serious answer.

          If CO2 is the cause of the Arctic ice melt (and lets assume it is for the moment) then why is teh Antartic ice increasing?

          Now please dont respond with the usual “aw gee shucks……” response, if you people are so sure that CO2 is causing the melt then why not at both ends of the globe?


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Sonny

            Crackar24

            Alarmists like Maxine and John will never enter into a real debate in which they have to address the “Antarctica Issue”. Propagandists are too smart to acknowledge contravening facts.

            Anyway the answer to your question is that the globe rotates with an axial wobble and the arctic has been exposed to more sun than usual and the antarctic less sun.

            Weather isn’t 100% defined by CO2


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Catamon

            Just for you Crackup.

            You might wonder why the negative trends in Arctic sea ice seem to be more important to climate scientists than the smaller increase in Antarctic ice. Part of the reason, of course, is simply that the size of the increase is much smaller and slightly less certain than the Arctic trend.

            In the Antarctic, however, sea ice already melts almost completely each summer. Even if it completely disappeared in the summer, the impact on the Earth’s climate system would likely be much smaller than a similar disappearance of Arctic ice.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            John Brookes

            That is too easy Crackar. The arctic is not so cold, so adding a bit of heat causes ice to melt. The antarctic is a lot colder, and any precipitation there is likely to freeze and stay, and adding a few degrees to the temperature won’t change that. Only a fake skeptic would expect otherwise, or a loony greenie.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Gee Aye

            remember those words of wisdom craker? I gave them to you and they apply here.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            If CO2 is the cause of the Arctic ice melt (and lets (sic) assume it is for the moment) then why is the (sic) Antartic (sic) ice increasing?

            May I try? Let’s see… The air over both the arctic and Antarctic ice masses stays below freezing, or so I’ve been told. But the Antarctic is all sitting on dry land — land cooled from above and permanently below freezing. The arctic ice mass on the other hand, sits on (floats on) water, water which can change temperature according to changes in seasons and currents.

            Does anyone see a reason why the arctic ice might melt and the Antarctic ice might not?

            Does anyone notice that in spite of the Antarctic ice over land not melting, the ice shelf (over water) has?

            Can any of you believers do even simple math and add 1 + 1 to get the right answer? John? Maxine?

            Do I get a prize? I’d like a bright shiny red 2013 Ferrari. Oh sorry, that’s a gas guzzler…bad carbon footptint and all. Maybe a shiny red top-of-the-line Prius (50 MPG or better)? Then I could emulate Al Gore’s son and drive it 110 MPH down Interstate 5 while high on booze and drugs. What fun!

            Not exactly the answer to your question but what the hay? Great accuracy isn’t really required in climate science. ;-)


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Crakar24

            Thanks for all the responses


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Crakar24

      To Maxine this is kind of a follow up question to 36.4.1.1, if you look at the graph you link to you will see the ice was near the average in winter but now very low in summer, obviously the sun light has played a role in the melting but if CO2 is the main culprit then why was the winter ice so high?

      Is CO2 heating the oceans or the air? Why would CO2 not have an effect on winter ice but only summer?

      Any thoughts?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        catamon

        Think volume Cracked. The extent of multi year sea ice taint what it used to be.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Maybe i should expand on the question a little.

        Once again lets assume CO2 is the primary cause of Arctic ice melt and the result of this is a low summer sea ice extent. lets look at the link from maxine again and we can see that since 2002 the winter extent is about the same but the summer extent varies quite a bit, this indicates that the winter freeze varies or makes up for a greater summer melt. If we have a low summer melt we get less winter freeze if we have a high summer melt we get a bigger winter freeze this is not what i would expect from a melting due to CO2.

        Is it possible that we are not very good at measuring summer ice extent? We are simply not able to resolve ice sheets from water? This inaccuracy leads to variations in our summer measurements which then gives the illusion of a variation in winter freeze?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Crakar24

          Something else of interest has just come to light.

          In September 2007 the Antarctic ice extent reached record high levels at the same time the Arctic ice reached record lows…..coincedence?

          Well just as the Arctic has reached a new record low we find the Antarctic is approaching record highs again.

          “Antarctic ice extent is the highest ever for the date, and the eighth highest daily reading ever recorded,” “All seven higher readings occurred during the third week of September, 2007 – the week of the previous Arctic record minimum.”

          Now we can have a rational debate about this or we can simply smear each other

          Yeah Catamon, its kind of odd how this part of climate science is actually pretty much common sense. Unlike a lot of other science that is genuinely tricky.

          Maybe Sonny is right……………..


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Sonny

    What is with the alarmists obsession with the arctic?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Winston

      Liquefactomania


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        .
        Is that the same as bed-wetting?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Sonny

          And why do the alarmists like Maxine completely ignore Antarctica (as if it never existed)
          When it has TEN TIMES the amount


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sonny

          And why do the alarmists like Maxine completely ignore Antarctica (as if it never existed)
          When it has TEN TIMES the amount of ice as does the Arctic.

          Those shameless cherry picking bed wetting chicken littles.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            I’m thinking there’s no way of comparing Arctic and Antarctic behavior. As I pointed out, one ice mass sits on permanently frozen land and the other floats on water.

            But here’s a good research project for someone. Find out what the water temperature under the Arctic ice mass actually is and how it varies and compare that with air temperatures on top of the ice in the same places and at the same time. Do the same for water and air temperature at the surface if and when/where there is no ice. We’d need a continuous reading for at least a year to make this worthwhile — maybe at least 500 well placed sites.

            This would correlate what the temperatures actually are with the satellite observations of the ice extent. It would also be real information about what’s going on.

            Any takers?

            Or does it seem like real research is a little tougher than you might think? ;-)


            Report this

            00

    • #
      Crakar24

      What is with the alarmists obsession with the arctic?

      Because of all the predictions ever made of doom and gloom this is the only one that has a chance of panning out, regardless of whether CO2 has caused it or not.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    One has to wonder who it was that wrote our current economics textbooks.

    When governments (plural, mind you) do not know that giving away quantities of a commodity drives down its unit value, the greater the quantity the lower the value, the academies who trained them must be at fault.

    It is clear to see in rural Australia that the economic theories employed over the past 35 years have greatly furthered the cause of Marxism. This must also apply in urban Australia, though may be less easy to see there.

    So just who did write the textbooks? And who chose them to be taught?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    there you go! who would have thought so:

    17 Sept: SMH: Michael Gordon: PM’s fightback is built on carbon
    ANALYSIS
    THE story behind the story of Julia Gillard’s dogged fightback is the price on carbon…
    As Nielsen’s John Stirton put it last night: Malcolm Turnbull is popular with his support rising; Kevin Rudd is popular with his support falling; Julia Gillard is unpopular with her support rising; and Tony Abbott is unpopular with his support falling. Rudd remains the nation’s most popular leader, but the finding that he could reverse the two-party-preferred result invites scepticism because he isn’t in the job – and because Labor voters want to stick with Gillard…
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/michael-gordon


    Report this

    00

  • #
    klem

    Carbon is carbon. Why would I pay $15 for Australian carbon if the UN is selling it for $3?

    Why is Australian carbon so overpriced?

    Perhaps it is ‘special’ in some way, perhaps it is gourmet carbon?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John, September 16, 2012 at 2:11 am, stated:

    Air contains roughly 78% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, trace amounts of other gases, and a variable amount (average around 1%) of water vapor.

    Right. Therefore the man-made portion of CO2 emissions cannot be more than 3.5% of O.038%of atmospheric CO2. In other words, the man-made portion of CO2 makes up 0.00133% of the armosphere.

    It is very doubtful, and it has not ever been proved yet, that CO2 — at 0.038% of the atmosphere — drives temperature trends. So, how can the man-made portion of it (at 0.00133% of the atmosphere) be the driver?

    The question remains, why is it that so many people obsess about a miniscule fraction of a minuscule trace gas, and why are the economies of so many nations being wrecked on account of that?

    I know propaganda when I see it, ever since I got a good dose of it when growing up under the Nazi regime.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes, at September 16, 2012 at 10:03 pm, stated

    I suspect, Walter, that the problem is that human emissions of CO2 have pushed up the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 280ppm to 390ppm.

    But maybe you haven’t been keeping up with this sort of thing.

    John Brookes, well, I don’t know whether there was a test on that, besides not knowing whose standards would have been used to measure the results.

    Nevertheless, you appear to assume that all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 content during the last century was man-made. However, you fail to explain how man-made CO2 emissions (3.5% of total CO2 emissions) accumulated and were not even partially absorbed by natural sinks, while natural emissions (96.5% of CO2 emissions) are the only ones or predominantly the ones that were being absorbed.

    I hope you don’t mind, but I rather go by the scientific evidence rather than by your suspicions. I have kept up with CO2 science well enough to understand things are not quite as simple as your suspicion alleges.

    Rising temperatures causes out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (conversely, cooling temperatures do cause the oceans to absorb CO2, and that the 110ppmv increase correlates well with the temperature increase we have seen during the past century.

    Moreover, the correlation between temperature increases and CO2 increases lags changes in temperature trends. In other words, higher temperatures cause CO2 increases, not the other way around.

    But why don’t you inform yourself on that? Look up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YrI03ts–9I

    It will take less than one hour for you to become informed. If you don’t want to spend that much time to find out, go to 3:15 in the video and watch just for a few minutes.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Brookes

      Hmmm.

      Nevertheless, you appear to assume that all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 content during the last century was man-made. However, you fail to explain how man-made CO2 emissions (3.5% of total CO2 emissions) accumulated and were not even partially absorbed by natural sinks, while natural emissions (96.5% of CO2 emissions) are the only ones or predominantly the ones that were being absorbed.

      Can’t you see that this is just wrong? I didn’t assume anything of the sort, and nor would anyone who actually thought about it. Without massive man made emissions, the total CO2 in the atmosphere would be pretty stable, or possibly decreasing a bit. Each year, roughly the same amount would be absorbed and emitted by nature, giving a slow rate of change. But we pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. And about half of the amount we pump ends up staying there. And that gives us our steadily increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.


      Report this

      01

      • #
        Crakar24

        John lets tone down the rhetoric a little, it is not massive amounts it is 110PPM.

        Walter has stated that the temp has gone up which has then caused the CO2 to rise…….yes i grant you your point that coal burning etc does produce CO2 but the question still remains how much of the 110ppm is from coal burning and how much is from the natural cycle (dont forget the temp rise started long before we began burning coal).

        Now i understand history shows us that this is the point where you stop commenting only to return at a later date but i would implore to respond in a worthwhile manner as this is a very important topic.

        So John, is it possible that some of the CO2 rise is due to temp rise that cannot be attributed to man?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Olaf Koenders

          Forget the professional troll guys. he gets it, but won’t admit it. Much like he won’t admit to still living in mummy’s basement/attic/ensuite/wardrobe.. (at least the ensuite has a toilet)


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Olaf Koenders

        John, why not take a damn hard look at yourself:

        http://davidappell.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/the-charlesh-problem.html

        (at least the ensuite has a toilet)

        Better than a Milo tin Johnny. Make the switch..


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    Billions of dollars have been raised in the past seven years through the United Nations‘ system to set up greenhouse gas-cutting projects, such as windfarms and solar panels, in poor nations.

    Obviously, everyone got their bit of the Green boondoggle pie yet? Tasty huh? Wonder where my slice went. Wonder where that green energy, in poor countries, went.?


    Report this

    10

  • #

    John Brookes, at September 18, 2012 at 5:36 pm, stated,

    Hmmm….Without massive man made emissions, the total CO2 in the atmosphere would be pretty stable, or possibly decreasing a bit. Each year, roughly the same amount would be absorbed and emitted by nature, giving a slow rate of change.

    John, you progressed from assumptions to assertions, although nevertheless still unsubstantiated. You offered absolutely no evidence to support your assertion, not even anecdotal evidence.

    Did you not watch Dr. Murray Salby’s presentation I had pointed you to?

    You insist that there are “massive man made emissions,” that “we pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere,” and that “about half of the amount we pump ends up staying there.”

    It looks to me that you don’t provide any scientific evidence in support of those assertions because you don’t know where to find it. Don’t bother looking for it. No such evidence exists.

    Aside from the absence of such evidence, it is absolutely wrong to call 3.5% (the man-made portion, as per IPCC figures) of total annual global CO2 emissions “massive”. You should never call a minuscule amount “massive”.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Ted O'Brien

    Ian Dunlop says 4 degrees!

    The Sydney Morning Herald has printed an article by Ian Dunlop, quoting some figures that look to me more wishful than factual.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/fourdegree-rise-demands-90degree-rethink-20120921-26byz.html

    This raises the question, how much money does Ian Dunlop have invested in the AGW industry? Like, for instance, carbon trading?

    Or, for that matter, how much does the Editor of the smh?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bushbunny

    I heard even Ally Gore is disappointed and warning people about investing in green energy, anyone have more details or is this just wishful thinking.


    Report this

    00