Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
The REDD scheme has started to function.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2027153/kenya...
So you take a chunk of forest somewhere and create a business to 'look after it'. You then give the business the right to sell 'carbon credits' to businesses or organisations that have been told they need them in order to continue doing what they do. This re-distributes money but, of itself, does nothing to reduce the alleged 'carbon pollution' UNLESS it stops the forest destruction or something like that.
Sound very much like a protection racket to me. If that's not intended there still seems to be the possibility that it will nevertheless be the result.
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2027153/kenya...
So you take a chunk of forest somewhere and create a business to 'look after it'. You then give the business the right to sell 'carbon credits' to businesses or organisations that have been told they need them in order to continue doing what they do. This re-distributes money but, of itself, does nothing to reduce the alleged 'carbon pollution' UNLESS it stops the forest destruction or something like that.
Sound very much like a protection racket to me. If that's not intended there still seems to be the possibility that it will nevertheless be the result.
Oh dear. Another blow for windymills...
Don't work with too much wind...
Don't work with too little wind..
Don't work when it's icy...
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/02/15/new-brun...
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/02/15/new-brun...
Deep joy...
Don't work with too much wind...
Don't work with too little wind..
Don't work when it's icy...
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/02/15/new-brun...
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/02/15/new-brun...
Deep joy...
We might think that Politics and Business only mix at or near something close to a 'global' level. To partner with Government you have to be 'World class'. Esepcially to benefit from the Climate Change Whatever pot.
Maybe not so.
Reuters have this article about fraud in realtion to a smaller operation selling shares that were designed to net smaller investors wishing to ride the wave on the back of the CC campaigns.
It seems the operations go back a few years. Maybe they should have waited, these days they probably would not have been noticed in the noise.
Maybe not so.
Reuters have this article about fraud in realtion to a smaller operation selling shares that were designed to net smaller investors wishing to ride the wave on the back of the CC campaigns.
It seems the operations go back a few years. Maybe they should have waited, these days they probably would not have been noticed in the noise.
LongQ said:
Anyone at a loose end in London with a few quid to spare at the end of March might be interested in this - a Spectator magazine debate.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/6699018/spe...
I'm going.. mainly for the Bishop hill pub meet up though http://www.spectator.co.uk/shop/events/6699018/spe...
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 19th February 03:34
Hmm.
The unintended consequences of political interference - assuming this is true of course.
"Schools face fines because buildings will not pass new Eco tests ....."
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/230131/Schools...
A few more like this and people may just start to work out what is happening.
ETA: Daily Express Comment
The unintended consequences of political interference - assuming this is true of course.
"Schools face fines because buildings will not pass new Eco tests ....."
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/230131/Schools...
A few more like this and people may just start to work out what is happening.
ETA: Daily Express Comment
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 20th February 02:33
This is interesting.
House of Representatives cuts off 2011 funding to the IPCC
Can anyone in the US confirm this report?
House of Representatives cuts off 2011 funding to the IPCC
Can anyone in the US confirm this report?
This one seems rather obscure but may be carrying over from other places.
The precautionary principle as applied from a non-warmist point of view.
Must remember to check out the Nordhaus information referred to.
On the other hand the potential for disruption, presumably rapidly occurring, from local changes can be understood to some extent, we are told, by events in Jordan about 4,200 years ago. The article is brief but suggests, if one allows oneself to mentally visualise how things might have been back then based on the information provided, that the problems suggested were more related to human interaction than any climate issues.
In other words if there was conflict it was not due to natural constraints - many people were stil nomadic and the world population, so far as we are told, was quite small back then so there would be plenty of space for all. But if people did not want to move yet could not be absorbed into the local successful social groups surely that says more about human adaptability and interactions than it does about climate variability.
The precautionary principle as applied from a non-warmist point of view.
Must remember to check out the Nordhaus information referred to.
On the other hand the potential for disruption, presumably rapidly occurring, from local changes can be understood to some extent, we are told, by events in Jordan about 4,200 years ago. The article is brief but suggests, if one allows oneself to mentally visualise how things might have been back then based on the information provided, that the problems suggested were more related to human interaction than any climate issues.
In other words if there was conflict it was not due to natural constraints - many people were stil nomadic and the world population, so far as we are told, was quite small back then so there would be plenty of space for all. But if people did not want to move yet could not be absorbed into the local successful social groups surely that says more about human adaptability and interactions than it does about climate variability.
LongQ said:
This is interesting.
House of Representatives cuts off 2011 funding to the IPCC
Can anyone in the US confirm this report?
http://luetkemeyer.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=2...House of Representatives cuts off 2011 funding to the IPCC
Can anyone in the US confirm this report?
Arnold The Bat said:
http://luetkemeyer.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=2...
House Passes Luetkemeyer Amendment to Halt Taxpayer Financing of UN Climate Panel
02/19/11
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a major victory for American taxpayers, the House of Representatives today passed a budget amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The amendment, which is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Luetkemeyer, was passed in a direct challenge to the president’s request to fund the IPCC, which has provided information that purports to support the administration’s call for job-killing cap-and-tax legislation. Luetkemeyer’s amendment was one of 19 amendments highlighted this week by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for at a time of out-of-control spending and historic debt, which is why I am extremely pleased that my amendment passed,” Luetkemeyer said. “It is time for Washington to combat this year’s record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt. This amendment is part of that effort.”
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
House Passes Luetkemeyer Amendment to Halt Taxpayer Financing of UN Climate Panel
02/19/11
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a major victory for American taxpayers, the House of Representatives today passed a budget amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The amendment, which is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Luetkemeyer, was passed in a direct challenge to the president’s request to fund the IPCC, which has provided information that purports to support the administration’s call for job-killing cap-and-tax legislation. Luetkemeyer’s amendment was one of 19 amendments highlighted this week by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for at a time of out-of-control spending and historic debt, which is why I am extremely pleased that my amendment passed,” Luetkemeyer said. “It is time for Washington to combat this year’s record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt. This amendment is part of that effort.”
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Some coverage.
Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.
For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.
Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.
My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.
Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.
For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.
Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.
My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.
House votes to block funding for EPA's greenhouse gas regulations
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/14514...
Some Italian outfit taking the EU to court over stolen carbon trading certificates.
Next up "Grow a tulip to save the world. How we should all invest in tulip bulbs for a bright new future that will create millions of jobs and make people rich beyond their wildest dreams ...."
Next up "Grow a tulip to save the world. How we should all invest in tulip bulbs for a bright new future that will create millions of jobs and make people rich beyond their wildest dreams ...."
chris watton said:
Arnold The Bat said:
http://luetkemeyer.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=2...
House Passes Luetkemeyer Amendment to Halt Taxpayer Financing of UN Climate Panel
02/19/11
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a major victory for American taxpayers, the House of Representatives today passed a budget amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The amendment, which is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Luetkemeyer, was passed in a direct challenge to the president’s request to fund the IPCC, which has provided information that purports to support the administration’s call for job-killing cap-and-tax legislation. Luetkemeyer’s amendment was one of 19 amendments highlighted this week by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for at a time of out-of-control spending and historic debt, which is why I am extremely pleased that my amendment passed,” Luetkemeyer said. “It is time for Washington to combat this year’s record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt. This amendment is part of that effort.”
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
House Passes Luetkemeyer Amendment to Halt Taxpayer Financing of UN Climate Panel
02/19/11
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a major victory for American taxpayers, the House of Representatives today passed a budget amendment offered by U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.
The amendment, which is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Luetkemeyer, was passed in a direct challenge to the president’s request to fund the IPCC, which has provided information that purports to support the administration’s call for job-killing cap-and-tax legislation. Luetkemeyer’s amendment was one of 19 amendments highlighted this week by the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.
“The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an entity that is fraught with waste and fraud, and engaged in dubious science, which is the last thing hard-working American taxpayers should be paying for at a time of out-of-control spending and historic debt, which is why I am extremely pleased that my amendment passed,” Luetkemeyer said. “It is time for Washington to combat this year’s record budget deficit and fast-growing national debt. This amendment is part of that effort.”
The IPCC advises governments around the world on climate change, and supporters of cap-and-tax legislation have used questionable findings by the IPCC as reason to support onerous legislation. Criticism of this science intensified over the last two years when emails publicly released from a university in England showed that leading global scientists intentionally manipulated climate data and suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals. Researchers were asked to delete and destroy emails so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.
More than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC. These 700-plus dissenting scientists are affiliated with institutions like the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, the U.S. Air Force and Navy, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The science simply does not point to a catastrophe that can only be avoided by an authoritarian statist solution.
Effectively, we can do nothing until we start feeling negative effects... and then the invisible hand will sort things anyway.
Luckily as people start accepting the science more people are arguing this way and the likes of Monbiot are crying themselves to sleep. Which is what we all want.
Effectively, we can do nothing until we start feeling negative effects... and then the invisible hand will sort things anyway.
Luckily as people start accepting the science more people are arguing this way and the likes of Monbiot are crying themselves to sleep. Which is what we all want.
I'm slightly cautious about posting this one without a warning.
This video is, in my view, quite remarkable in that it offers pathos, humour, political direction, ad hominem attack and quite reasonable statements that are assumed to support what I consider to be the wrong conclusion. And there's more. In fact it is almost sexist too!
If you watch it, sit down. Open your mind, relax. Take the first 9 minutes or so as preamble and be sure to have plenty of salt available to season with. Just make sure you watch it all if you start to watch it at all.
I have rarely felt that a presentation was both so wrong and so right, even it for the wrong reasons, at the same time. One could use pretty much the same words and change a little emphasis, a few names and some of the slides and present an entirely opposite view. It's fascinating - or at least I think it is.
Enjoy
This video is, in my view, quite remarkable in that it offers pathos, humour, political direction, ad hominem attack and quite reasonable statements that are assumed to support what I consider to be the wrong conclusion. And there's more. In fact it is almost sexist too!
If you watch it, sit down. Open your mind, relax. Take the first 9 minutes or so as preamble and be sure to have plenty of salt available to season with. Just make sure you watch it all if you start to watch it at all.
I have rarely felt that a presentation was both so wrong and so right, even it for the wrong reasons, at the same time. One could use pretty much the same words and change a little emphasis, a few names and some of the slides and present an entirely opposite view. It's fascinating - or at least I think it is.
Enjoy
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 20th February 23:52
PH, being a Car focused (no pun or slut intended ) web site and forum likes car based items I assume so how about this one.
It compares two scares that had worldwide coverage and effects. The Toyota recall scares over the last couple of years related to "large unintended accelerations" and the continuing issue of CAGW.
In the case of Toyota, where in the USA NASA were tasked with the investigation, it appears that no evidence has been found. I wonder how the CAGW report will turn out?
) web site and forum likes car based items I assume so how about this one.It compares two scares that had worldwide coverage and effects. The Toyota recall scares over the last couple of years related to "large unintended accelerations" and the continuing issue of CAGW.
In the case of Toyota, where in the USA NASA were tasked with the investigation, it appears that no evidence has been found. I wonder how the CAGW report will turn out?
I'm not yet sure what to make of this in a political sense - other than to suggest that politics and business are as one in terms of agreeing the layout of the field and now just want to negotiate on the rules of the game.
Carbon Emissions Could Cost $8 Trillion Over the Next 20 Years
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Carbon-E...
I note reports that the tension in Libya has been the catalyst for the recent Oil price rise.
Thinking about that is there any global business. government or green leaning NGO who would not be encouraged by the recent development in the Middle East and North Africa? Any crude oil price increase would be a cause for celebration if you wanted to price people out of travel and still retain the same tax income in the medium term. Green leaning business will not object either. 'Energy security' and all that.
Too cynical?
Carbon Emissions Could Cost $8 Trillion Over the Next 20 Years
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Carbon-E...
I note reports that the tension in Libya has been the catalyst for the recent Oil price rise.
Thinking about that is there any global business. government or green leaning NGO who would not be encouraged by the recent development in the Middle East and North Africa? Any crude oil price increase would be a cause for celebration if you wanted to price people out of travel and still retain the same tax income in the medium term. Green leaning business will not object either. 'Energy security' and all that.
Too cynical?
Edited by LongQ on Monday 21st February 18:48
Edited by LongQ on Monday 21st February 18:49
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff