Mar
The funniest joke no one ever tells: Enron helped develop the Carbon Trading Scheme
This is a constant line you hear from the AGW supporters:
It [Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth'] presupposes that American corporations oppose any measure to cap carbon emissions because it will hurt their profits.
But, strangely enough:
….we should start with Al Gore’s own words, taken from the bonus material on the DVD release of An Inconvenient Truth:
“A lot of business leaders are changing their positions. New businesses and CEO’s and corporations every week are now joining this new bandwagon saying ‘we want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem.’”
Where did Al Gore’s skepticism go? I thought businessmen just wanted to pad their bottom line; now they want to save the planet?
How could such a transformation happen? Is Al such a persuasive speaker, has big business seen the light?
……the company that helped draft the initial concept for a carbon trading system: everyone’s favorite, now-defunct, energy trading firm, Enron.
In 1997, then Enron CEO, Ken Lay wrote an op-ed entitled “For Prevention’s Sake: Focus on Climate Solutions.” In it he strongly advocated the Kyoto Protocol, which would cap carbon emissions worldwide.
Now that’s a worry. I wonder why.
…..but Enron did help establish and trade extensively in the $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap and trade scheme the EPA set up to deal with acid rain. Enron’s link to carbon trading is simply undeniable.
Let no one fool you about who is going to rake in the dollars. It’s been done before and it’s a proven money-spinner.
Source for above: Swift Economics
In case you had doubts:
……..sentiment is best articulated by the most liberal member of congress, Dennis Kucinich:
Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.
It is regressive. Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests. The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations. And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors. Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.
Source for above: Dennis Kucinich
Does anyone ever tell you this?
Possibly related posts:
- Woman Who Invented Credit Default Swaps is One of the Key Architects of Carbon Derivatives, Which Would Be at the Very CENTER of Cap and Trade
- Carbon emissions are such a “nuisance”
- IPCC Gets a Solid “F” in WSJ Poll
- Can Assemblyman Dan Logue suspend California’s cap-and-trade law?
- The AGW theory is dying yet the carbon market goes on
I don’t get the joke–Enron’s business plan was involvement with government officials in schemes to defraud. It’s not funny–it stinks!
You guys must be desperate to just make stuff up. Cap and trade has been done for over 20 years and was invented by the Reagan administration. Its still working fine, BTW. It was in place for sulfur before Enron existed.
Your comment is both vague and economical with the truth. As Alex says I was quoting from an article that was much more precise and detailed than your comment.
Perhaps this specific information will clarify things for you
“The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which launched its trading platform in 2003, is the only U.S. emissions cap-and-trade market for all six greenhouse gases”
Does that help?
… and I’m sorry Jerry, I didn’t mean to offend. I’m a Brit and I was being sarcastic (ironic) in the title. It’s how we emphasise something that’s outrageous.
Ed, get yourself a Toyota Precious, head far north and inland to higher ground. We will call you when the global warming has ended.
Here’s Enron’s role:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/30/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx
It’s working fine? You’re delusional.
Did Enron help write a scheme? Yes
Did Enron write lots of other “schemes”? Yes
Was everything Ernon did a sham? Overwhelmingly NO.
Is there anything unseemly about Enron trying to make a product out of a new commodity trading method? NO
Has the sulfur trading “scheme” been successful? ABSOLUTELY
Did the sulfur trading “scheme” come under identical dire predictions as carbon faces now? YES
Did ANY of those predictions prove true? NO
@ Ed Shearon
This article does not say Enron invented cap and trade. It is linking it to to CARBON TRADING SCHEME, which is a form of cap and trade. There is no denying that cap and trade has been around for some time, though the negative impacts 20 years ago pale in comparison to what has being devised by Al Gore/Obama.
The point is simply that yiou are trying to indict by association. Enron did not invent many markets, although it did develop a few. One of which is weather, which is traded rather robustly today.
There are a number of emission trading firms and CCX is not the only one in the US.
This article is childish attempt at drawing parallels that are nonexistent to further your agenda. .
Gorebull Warming is real.
As evidenced by the comment above I am most irked by yoir cynical m$anipilation of a readership that is undereducated, not very discerning and who tend to laud wilful ignorance as a virtue.
They have been told Gore invented all this, are clueless as to what cap and trade or carbon trading are, other than vehicle by which the elite will use to bring one world government and socialism they are clueless about science and paranoid about anything they can’t understand.
You and the special interests that ultimately fund you are simply and cynically exploiting for your own personal benefit.
Enlighten us, oh discerning one.
What would you like to know, Lisa?
Illustrator nos escendo deus
Seriously, what impact has the worlds largest carbon market, the European Union Emission Trading Scheme operating since 2005 had on on CO2 levels?
In the last quarter 90% of carbon trading in the EU netted about €5bn for criminals. Who foots the bill for this? Could it be the consumer through higher energy costs? This is good for climate change, why?
We appreciate you answering some questions, it is not often we have a member ot the intelligentsia drop by.
Not to menion they give away billions of dollars of carbon credits so it doesn’t reduce a thing. It does fatten up companies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/7354751/EU-carbon-trading-windfalls-under-fire-from-Lord-Turner.html
If you read the article from which I was quoting you’ll see that Enron’s involvement was, in fact, greater than I suggested. They were massive beneficiaries under the ‘acid rain’ regulations, if I recall correctly.
The point I was making was to debunk the idea that ‘cap and trade’ is something the energy industry dislikes. They will profit massively from it, and I have dded the quote from the Democratic Congressman just to sonfirm the point. I did realise that this would hit a sensitive spot with the AGW crowd, so the more you squeal, the more I’ll repeat it. Get over it.
Wow! Ed are you on the Kool-Aid to spout such ad hominems and conspiracy theorising? I, like everyone else who pitches in here wants to be funded but we’re not. Please show us proof and also point out which of the tens of millions of grassroots skeptics showing up on Google ‘hits’ is also ‘special interest’ funded. We’d all love a piece of that pie but its all going into green pockets, sadly.
cap and trade is dead says Senator Lindsey Graham:
HB WASHINGTON. “Die Emissionshandelsgesetze im Repräsentantenhaus und im Senat sind tot. Das Konzept des Emissionshandels wird ersetzt”, sagte der republikanische Politikerin am Dienstag in Washington. Der demokratische Senator John Kerry erklärte, er hoffe, dass noch in diesem Monat in der Kammer eine Kompromisslösung bei dem Klimaschutz-Gesetz gefunden werden könne. Dafür seien allerdings noch viele Gespräche nötig. …
http://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/co2-zertifikate-us-senator-erklaert-emissionshandel-fuer-tot;2539420
To Lisa: spoken like a card carrying member of the Moron Minority.
To: I LOVE CO2: Cap and Trade ist durch “Cap and Dividend” ersetzt worden.
Graham, CARBON TRADING SCHEME should read CARBON TRADING SCAM, call a spade a spade I say, even if it is a STEAM SHOVEL SCAM.
Ed Shearon, Morons should not insinuate that other people might be Morons……….If the CAP fits Ed one should wear it !
Lisa.M, Morons are not capable of answering intelligent questions posed by intelligent people.
CLIMATE CHANGE Ed is REAL, has, is and always will happen, and it is PREDOMINANTLY if not COMPLETELY…NATURAL.
The ONLY constant in CLIMATE is CHANGE Ed, and it has nothing to do with Man Made production of CO2 (Plant Food) Ed.
Mike, MANN MADE GLOBAL WARMING is also real, but he had plenty of help from JONES, BRIFFA, HANSEN et al. The fact that it bears NO resemblance to reality will not deter the AGW TAX CARBON SCAM pushers. We need to INCARCERATE the lot of them, as in THROW THEM IN JAIL and THROW AWAY THE KEYS.
Lisa asked a serious question. Here’s my reply.
EU-ETS , in a nutshell, does not appear to have been thought through, especially considering its magnitude.
The notion of handing out permits on the one hand for free and then allowing the holders of those permits (the coal electricity producers) and pass through the costs to ratepayers is just goofy.
I am not an expert on the EU system, but I suspect our friends, the purveyors of fossil fuels, managed to influence the EU-ETS rules as effectively as they are manipulating the less fortunate conservatives in the population by spreading this “AGW is a hoax” nonsense. In the US, just in 2009, that group spent $300 M in lobbying. Thus the willingness of Senator Inhofe to make a positive ass of himself for the benefit of his biggest contributors (top 2 industries funding him: oil and medical insurance- any guess how he votes?).
Cap and trade, as you may know, has been extraordinarily effective in the US for sulfur and nitrogen oxides. SO2 has been in place since the mid-80′s and has reduced US emissions by 50%. When it was being introduced, the same cast of characters fought it that are fighting climate legislation now. Same claims of “it’ll kill the economy” and “utility bills will skyrocket” and “SO2 is good for us- rain with a little lower pH helps crops,” and “there’s no way we can affect the chemistry of the atmosphere” and ” the science is faulty”. We even had a president claim acid rain was natural and what gave the mountains their foggy mantles. When all was said and done, after states forced the EPA to act (just like CO2), emissions dropped, no economy was destroyed, no utility bills skyrocketed and all the deniers claims about the science went into the waste bin.
So the EU-ETS needs fixing, and its worthless all by itself unless the rest of the world establishes some rigorous means to get emissions down.
Now, for you others, I left out the adjective “militant” before “willfully ignorant” to describe the Moron Minority. You get angry and scream lies when confronted with the truth. Relax, because its going to happen time and time again.
Cap and trade or just “commodity trading” is happening everyday to the tune of billions. People trade all manner of things that would boggle your minds. You cannot believe how nonsensical and out of touch you appear with this goofy claim that cap and trade is some new invention to scam people through climate. Such trading has been going on for over a century and is a way of life for a lot of people in a zillion sectors. How daft!
Finally, scratch a denier and underneath, not too far below all the superficial “science” is a person fundamentally ignorant about the greater world around them and how it works, and tremendously paranoid that socialists are sneaking about attempting to take over their government and establish one world government using climate change as their vehicle.
I, for one, have a terrific time laughing at what silly stuff deniers have swallowed. It always amazes me how simple it is to dig a bit and find out someone has written the most outrageous headline spinning the truth or the fact that the non-profit is just a front for fossil fuel purveyors, or that the “scientist” is nothing of the sort, or that they just make stuff up, like the innuendo in this article above. Or the one Climate Depot tried to pull yesterday claiming they had a Nature-published paper by “scientists” when what they had was never published anywhere and was written by a couple of economics grad students in Israel.
And the anger and arrogance when these facts are put before them.
Face it boys and girls, you’ve been had. I know its tough to deal with, but the sooner you realize you are being manipulated the better off you will be. Unless of course, your livelihood depends on creating news and creating controversy and polarization for profit. You have another problem.
“Here’s my reply.
EU-ETS , in a nutshell, does not appear to have been thought through, especially considering its magnitude.
The notion of handing out permits on the one hand for free and then allowing the holders of those permits (the coal electricity producers) and pass through the costs to ratepayers is just goofy.”
What?
The EU-ETS is the biggest trading CO2 scheme in the world, trading €47B in 2008, it is also the most revered and the most likely to be copied trading system and you are saying in the past five years “its worthless all by itself unless the rest of the world establishes some rigorous means to get emissions down”. There are other carbon trading systems in place as well you know.
Just answer the pertinent question, what has been the cumulative effect on CO2 levels from the worldwide carbon trading market that reached a staggering $136 billion in 2009?
A. CO2 Levels are lower.
B. CO2 Levels remained the same
C. CO2 Levels are higher.
Please explain your answer. One other question, you seem to think that passing on carbon trading costs to ratepayers is just goofy, so who do you consider should pay for it?
“Face it boys and girls, you’ve been had”
Yes Ed, something we all agree on, everytime I see my electric bill I know that I am paying for some sculpture on the side of a mountain somewhere that moves now and again or contributed toward jobs at a solar panel manufacturer in China. The carbon swindle is at least having one positive benefit, it increases CO2 levels & that is something to be proud off. US agri production output just had it’s best year in 2009, go figure Ed.
First, you’ve got a system that was gamed by utilities. Perhaps some people revere it elsewhere, but there is no way its features would pass muster here.
Second, one system in the EU, no matter how good, is easily overwhelmed by China and India alone. So a balkanized system in Europe, where some states have not yet even agreed to caps is just a lot of greenwash.
To answer your “simple” questions, if you look at their own data, you cannot distinguish between the miniscule reduction in 2009 from the reduction that happened anyway because of the economic turndown which resulted in less CO2 production. Phase 1 didn’t seem to have any real reductions. And the fact that traders are making out like gangbusters illustrates the fact that the system has been gamed.
As to the Moron Science regarding “man made CO2 is good for us,” well, dear, you’ve just underscored my point about you all having been had. The guy at the forefront of that campaign, (www.co2isgreen) by the way, Leighton Stewart , is a retired Conoco exec whose last venture was “Sugar Busters, LLC” a terrific diet plan and book scam. Look it up.
Ed do you eat fruit and vegetables? Try and grow them with out co2!! then try and breath, with no co2 no plants and trees, and with out plants and trees, no people.
Plants and trees exhale 02 and inhale c02, sounds like a good trade off too. Every time I fire up my 1979 pro-street silverado and do a massive burn out the plants and trees are very happy, the neighbors on the other hand. lol
Only a moron can’t see the difference between normal, good CO2 and the unnatural kind we spew into the atmosphere. And its those morons that are the chief audience of the CO2 is green campaign. Second only to the other morons that will buy a diet scam.
Ed you are a Moron….put the cap on.
Ed – you conveniently forget all the examples of busted ‘hockey sticks’ and manipulated science littering the field of AGW research. You can’t even laugh them off as accidents, though many now laugh at the people who tried to sell the myth.
I wish I could let you down eaily Ed, I really do. The more you hold on to your myths the harder it will be when relisation dawns, but if you are a ‘believer’ then you need a course of de-programming.
You wouldn’t even be here if the AGW science weren’t leaking at the seams. You had us all going for a while Ed, but you fielded a poor team with a useless game plan. All it needed was a push for it all to fall over. By the time Cancun comes along, the only people who still believe it will all be there.
Luckily in the UK I have the option of voting against it, and that’s just what I’ll do.
I think Lisa’s hot.
I think Ed and Al Gore should car pool to the ‘Narsissistics Anonomus’ meetings so they can cut down on co2 emissions!!
I have a twitter address called @deniersanon. It represents the Climate Change Deniers Anonymous organization. We have resources to help you get your life back and out of denial.
I do believe that climate change is happening!! in a few months it will change again; it’s called summer, then it will change again, it’s called fall; then OMG!! it will change again; HOLY SHIT WHAT IS GOING ON!? oh yeah I forgot; it’s been doing that for billions of years. Damn glad too, I thought this was a BIG problem caused by man; thank God it’s not.
No disrespect it’s just funny (and true) this way.
RE: Ed Shearon
Did you notice? There’s nothing outside his understanding, he reminds me of some of the people I know who have never
found their way out of the classroom.
Ed, for the sake of all humanity..at least take a moment to share your cure for cancer, I’m sure you got that figgured too.
Ed – you’re losing the plot.
Are you seriously telling us you’ve discovered a new gas called
‘bad CO2′? If you’re going to re-arrange molecules on me, how can I hope to argue? However, you could be in line for a Nobel Prize, but they don’t mean much nowadays.
As I said above- only a moron…..
Is ‘Gore’ and anagram of ‘Capone’?
Is ‘Gore’ an anagram of ‘Capone’?
Most sceptics do not believe that CO2 is the cause of climate change.
Most sceptics believe that CO2 levels vary naturally, and are not harmful or cause global warming.
Most sceptics believe that CO2 levels are self-regulating.
Therefore, it is not necessary to cap and trade CO2.
A new carbon tax is not necessary either.
Sceptics are outraged that pseudo-science, lies, and cooked data are
being used to create the alarmism of AGW.
The AGW pushers don’t care, this is thier ‘boogy man’ and they will stick to it. It’s about money, it’s always been about money, and it will always be about money!! It’s like electric cars, they say to buy them because they are green and good for the planet. I will agree with that only on the fact that after it is manufactured it is clean, less the plugging in thing (electricity has to come from somewhere). If they told people that in order to produce the battaries for thier one little ‘green’ car does more polluting of the water and soil to make the rare earth magnets (and that’s real pollution) than the production of 15 thousand SUV’s blowing co2 (and that’s not pollution) out of the exhaust for a whole year, then no one would buy them. The little curly light bulbs, the cfl lights, if you brake one and the dust particles get in your system, it can cause major health problems and even death. Boy, don’t see that printed on the package do you.
If what you say is true, then most skeptics are apparently ignorant of 5th grade science. The role of GHG in climate was established by Fourier in 1840. Its not something made up bu UEA scientists or the Great Satan Gore.
But you make skeptics sound like their opinion is rational, given their ignorance of the science. You and I both know that all these atacks on credibility and corruption of science is to find a rationale to fit a political ideology- an ideology that thinks this is all about leftists (you pick the descriptor- socialists, communists, maoists, etc.) Using climate as a sinister vehicle to achieve their agenda of one world government. And this is how global oil and coal have decided is the best lever to co-opt the extreme right. Conspiracy? Hoax? You bet- being perpetrated on conservatives worldwide.
So what – the UEA CRU concede the planet’s not been warming recently. Riddle me that Batman.
In the UK we have a children’s TV series called ‘Blue Peter’ and the BBC showed the Fournier experiment in a kitchen sink. That’s about the standard of science we can do nowadays, but it was the funniest thing I saw all year, and to suggest that it was in any form a re-creation of climate is preposterous.
I’m no scientist but I assure you that any effect you recreate in your kitchen sink has no relevance whatsoever to the complexities of climate – and I hate to mention it again, but even the University of East Anglia now concede it’s been cooling.
Perhaps I’m too influenced by the US where deniers are willfully ignorant and are mostly the fruitcake fringe that see commies around every corner (you know the stereotype- guns, fundamentalist religion, fat white guys who listen to country music). In my mind a rational discussion revolves around probabilities not beliefs. I think there is an overwhelming probability that man made GHGs exceed what the natural sinks can absorb. The real uncertainty is by how much and, further, what can be done about it. There is no precision available here- its trends and probabilities. When people attempt to be precise, or use language that paints things black or white, they are ipso facto wrong.
The hysteria on both sides of the issue is lunacy and the rational discussion has yet to occur.
Pardon me, what is this “overwhelming probability” is based upon? You see, it is YOU who based opinions on beliefs, not us. And your only argument just happened to be ad hominem attacks, not a single data-based evidence. You see, the funny thing about science is that you have to actually support your claims. And the burden of proof rests on those who make a positive claim, in this case, you. You want to say that there IS a dangerous excess of CO2, that threatens the planet, and that humans are responsible? PROVE IT. And no, crying “wolf” is not a proof, and neither is it an argument.
Ed, if you were to brake the atmosphere down, say to the size of an olympic swimming pool, and then you took an eye dropper and filled it with hot water, and made one drop come out (that one drop being man made co2). Would that one drop of hot water warm the entire pool?
Now, if we remove the roof and let the sun shine on the pool all day, then would the pool warm up?
Co2 will not warm the planet, but we all know that the sun will. What’s the first thing people say after the rain stops and the sun comes out? Boy it’s going to get hot now! The Atmosphere is mostly water vapor, and the sun has solar cycles. Some cycles are more intense and there for cause warm periods. When the cycle is light, then we have cool periods. Nature is natural (go figure) and no amount of money (tax) can do a damn thing about it.
Unless you or some one else can figure a way to controle the sun (not block it out) and the oceans (biggest cause of co2) then we are helpless against it.
The climate is used to tax us and destroy the way we live, much like terrorist are created in order to go to war.
No, actually, it is you who is not familiar with the 5th grade science. GHGs are essential for the climate, yes, but it does not follow that a) anthropogenic emissions have any more significant impact on TOTAL GH effect on the planet than peeing in the river on level of the oceans (as a matter of fact, if you are interested, human CO2 emissions are 0.28% of total GH effect) or b) that in themselves they will have catastrophic effect on the Earth ecosystems.
You asked where the overwhelming probability came from?
See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7050341.ece
As I suspected all the ramblings at Hadley were not to suppress data that conflicted with the view, but rather to suppress data that would otherwise be too alarming.
LOL. THAT is your source? Have you even READ that crap you are referring to? Other than the headline? It is nothing but verbal smokescreen, and not a word about where anthropogenic factor is coming into it. Well, except for the “signature”, which I assume refers to isotopic depletion. Which, let me tell you, is not all that clear-cut. There is no reference to a peer-reviewed paper – any paper! No mention of any names except for Stott (and his private words bear no responsibility and contain no factual support). And (if you would give yourself trouble to actually READ the article) is full of ass-covering and facetious admission of screw-ups which is impossible to deny any longer. But I suppose that for such as you it is enough that there is once more an unsupported claim about @wealth of evidence” and pulled out of the ass “95%” to think that you are validated.
Ed, try to talk science, please. Show us the proof of the human signal in the global temperature record and identify for us how much climate change is man made and how much is natural, thanks.
Ed, co2 is co2. You may be thinking of the carbon monoxide, it’s not a green house gas that I know of but that doesn’t matter. They only said carbon dioxide, and it is essential for all things to live.
And by the way, is thier some kind of glass ceilling in the sky? Contrary to popular belief not all things that go up come down. if co2 man made or natural, is bad (don’t worry kids it’s not) then the planet would have been dead a few billion years ago and we would not be here to talk about this.
OK you want to play semantics game. CO2 is CO2. It is not inherently good or bad. There is the normal cycle of emission and absorption and that has been going on for millions of years. Then there is the last century or so where the cycle has been altered by man. The enormous excess produced by man has an effect. That, along with other excess emissions from man, like methane, are causing atmospheric heating.
Of course there are those that claim man cannot change God’s world, or that the earth is only 32,000 years old, or that the idea of climate changes caused by man is some huge conspiracy engaged in by every climate expert in the world for job security.
if that is true why then has the atmosphere (climate) been cooling?
Ed, we are not creationists here. We are logical empiricists contemptuous of the post normal scientific method. We hold true to the established scientific principles of Karl Popper insofar as every hypothesis must be refutable- the AGW denies us this and thus is not a true hypothesis.
Even Phil Jones now admits that a similar level of warming to that blip of 1975-98 may have occurred during the MWP. While the Holocene optimum tells us we’re quite clearly within the range of natural variation, and what with the relationship of the 30s warming (before the bulk of CO2 emissions), 60s cooling, and 80s warming being so closely related to the phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation for example, which computer models are currently unable to reproduce incidentally, I don’t think we can say we’ve eliminated all the alternatives.
The trouble is, the very basic stuff is wrong. The AGW argument, if there is one, is much more complicated than that. As we’ve noted before, CO2 can’t account for the warming we’ve seen either unless you introduce a large feedback to amplify it, for which the physical evidence is dubious.
I’ve discussed this issue in great depth with scientists. I’ve learnt that in the troposphere there are three principle radiative effects – shortwave absorption by H2O, and longwave radiative transfer by both H2O and CO2. The sunlight absorbed by water vapour warms the air, nearly balancing the cooling of the air to space due to longwave emission from CO2. These effects virtually cancel.
The bulk of the radiative cooling is due to the longwave emitted by H2O. The overall rate is controlled by the temperature of the gas at the level where it radiates to space – i.e. about one unit of optical depth from the top, although obviously there is a range. Since a greater partial pressure of CO2 or H2O raises this level, and since below the tropopause the temperature drops with altitude, more greenhouse gases cause a cooling of the air radiating to space and hence an overall warming of the whole system.
If the unit optical depth was at or above the tropopause, there would be no change in temperature and most of the effect would cancel out. Thus the Earth has a natural and self-regulating negative feedback mechanism. AGW scare over!
Did these Captains get their weather info from
Ed_Shearon.com ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8550687.stm
Oh yes, I know… warming causes whatever is happing now
ED, I thought you were an Alarmist for a bit, now I see you are just a warmer…the later has no clue as to what is going on…
I see you’re one of the clueless ones that thinks extreme winter in parts of the world is proof positive that there is no climate change happening. You know, the ones that can’t grasp the concept of “global.” Kind of like making fun of people who travel by air because “everyone knows” man can’t fly!
This just screams “I don’t know WTF I’m talking about and I’m proud of it!”
I presume that America’s foremost physicist is not clueless. He points out that you haven’t even got the right gas, but how can you tax a cloud?
“In fact, says Happer, climate science involves some of the most complicated questions of physics and astrophysics imaginable. The science simply can’t be reduced to the simple formulas promulgated by the IPCC, which he termed “an advocacy group for global warming alarmism that masquerades as a scientific organization.”
Happer points out that the tiny amount of CO-2 that man has introduced into the atmosphere could create only a correspondingly tiny rise in temperature. The climate-change crowd gets around this by contending that the CO-2 results in an increase in the amount of the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor.”
http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/02/rajendra_pachauri_media_went_g.html
Well it looks like the only hope for the Planet is that Morons like Ed are in the minority. His pseudo scientific BS has certainly kept me amused, but really Ed you need to take a step back and ask yourself a serious question or two.
1. Do you know what Empirical Evidence is ?
2. Can you read a Graph, and tell the difference between False and Real ones ?
3. How many Oxides does Carbon have ?
4. Just for a laugh please explain your Pseudo Scientific proof that Natural Atmospheric CO2 is different to Man Made Atmospheric CO2. And can a Tree or Plant tell the difference ?
Maurice:
Such a smarmy attitude from someone so erudite, whose sole contribution here has been this garbled rant full of goofy assertions:
Graham, CARBON TRADING SCHEME should read CARBON TRADING SCAM, call a spade a spade I say, even if it is a STEAM SHOVEL SCAM.
Ed Shearon, Morons should not insinuate that other people might be Morons……….If the CAP fits Ed one should wear it !
Lisa.M, Morons are not capable of answering intelligent questions posed by intelligent people.
CLIMATE CHANGE Ed is REAL, has, is and always will happen, and it is PREDOMINANTLY if not COMPLETELY…NATURAL.
The ONLY constant in CLIMATE is CHANGE Ed, and it has nothing to do with Man Made production of CO2 (Plant Food)
The use of CAPITAL LETTERS to shout the truth from the rooftops. We hear you Maurice. And the childish attempt at oneupmanship by calling for credentials! My, my,my. Must have been a sad childhood.
Apparently literacy is not among your competencies: I never said Natural Atmospheric CO2 is different to (from is the preferred usage) Man Made Atmospheric CO2.
Let me rephrase this in terms at a level you might comprehend: Lots of things on the earth make this invisible gas called carbon dioxide- forest fires, animals breathing, volcanoes, that kind of thing- and it goes into our air. The oceans and the plants take back part of this carbon dioxide from the air by absorbing it (kind of like eating, in a way); the amount of carbon dioxide stays more or less in balance and, along with some other gases, are what causes our planet to have warmth. Lets call them the warming gases. If we didn’t have the warming gases we would be like the moon and it would be very, very cold. Now lately, Maurice, SOMEONE has been adding a whole lot more of the warming gases than those things on the earth would otherwise make. And all the extra warming gas is changing the way our climate operates. You see, climate is like a big machine. In some places it makes the earth hot and in some places cold. When it warms up too fast all kinds of things can happen, many of which are good for some people and really bad for others.
Now Maurice, would you like to guess who the SOMEONE is that is making the extra warming gases? You guessed it! Why it is people! Just like you and me! Everything we burn adds to those gases, as well as the number of animals we raise for food.
Once upon a time, when there were castles and knights, there were not many people burning things, but in the last 50 years we have been burning and burning and burning. Our cars, our factories our heaters in our house and all those animals we need because there are just more and more people. Billions of them. So just like lots of places on earth where people have totally destroyed the plants and animals in their neighborhood, we’re doing it again, except now it isn’t just the island of Madagascar or Easter Island or tens of thousands of square kilometers around a little town called Chernobyl. Its the whole earth.
Very bad people that sell us the things we burn want to keep selling us the things we burn, and, in fact want us to burn more! So they don’t want us to do anything about these gases that we are making and have been whispering lies and stories in the ears of a lot of people that don’t have the advantage of a complete education, and a very afraid of things they don’t understand, who don’t know any better and believe them.
So now we all have to be sure we learn our lessons and have enough friggin brains to hear the mindless stories and lies and know them for what they are!
Get it Maurice? I hope so.
Well, I do not know about Mariuce, but I don’t get it. Enlighten poor silly woman, please. First, where the hell did you get this incredible statement: “Now lately, Maurice, SOMEONE has been adding a whole lot more of the warming gases than those things on the earth would otherwise make”? What do you mean by “the whole lot” and compare with WHAT?! Humans did increase CO2 content in the atmosphere, by about 25%, but it is merely compensating severe CO2 deficiency planet was experiencing for the last few millenia. News flush: plants are suffering from unprecedented lack of CO2. Greenhouses have to pump up at least 25 times more CO2 to provide optimal conditions for them. Just as it was in previous epochs. So yes, there is a lot of compensating potential for CO2 assimilation on the planet. Second, this 25% CO2 increase is in no way “a whole lot” on the scale of total GH effect. Because CO2 is not at all a major player among GHGs. It is water vapor that provide most of the heating.
And i was really amused with your passage about “very bad people” that sell us what we need. Guess what, they at least give us what they offer for money. So they are not as bad as those who want to take our money and also power over us for nothing at all.
Sorry for misspelling, Maurice, I can’t type.
Ed S.
CO2 is not a pollutant, as Al Gore says.
Here is the link for the full report
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5980
CONCLUSIONS
There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123).
We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend is true. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.
As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.
The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.
Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.
Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.
Can any of you tell me what this Gore fetish is about? He wrote a book about stuff that has been going on for years before he entered the scene. He didn’t have anything to do with the science- he’s just a promoter and a journalist- just like the “journalists” that publish all these little anti-AGW propaganda blogs.
You all act as if he is somehow responsible for the whole idea of man made climate change. Why on earth give him that much credit?
Why waste the incredible amount of energy and print on shooting the messenger?
I, for one, could give a s**t about what Al Gore says or what his opinions are. Frankly, he’s become a lightning rod, bringing out a most amazing portfolio of whackos.
He’s a tarbaby and you all are getting stuck.
I will have to agree with Ed, Al Gore did not create this whole thing. But he is the poster child!