Cumberland BC: The Cumberlander Articles Section
Go to Site Index See "Cumberland BC: The Cumberlander Articles Section" main page
National · 30th April 2010
Editor
By Lorrie Goldstein

Originally published April 22, 2010 at www.torontosun.com

Today's question is this:

Would you buy a used carbon market from the following self-proclaimed
"masters of the universe"?


That is, the same giant investment houses that just finished helping to crash the global economy by recklessly trading in risky subprime mortgage loans and other bizarre investment vehicles few people understood?

Would a glowing endorsement of a mandatory, North American cap-and-trade market in carbon dioxide emissions by, say, American International Group (AIG), recipients of $173 billion in bailout money from U.S. taxpayers, make you more or less well disposed to the idea?

How about praise for carbon trading from the folks at JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($25 billion in bailout money), Morgan Stanley ($10 billion) or Merrill Lynch ($10 billion)?

How about from Goldman Sachs, Wall Street's mightiest bank, recently accused of civil fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission over the sale of subprime mortgage securities? (The company denies the charges.)

How about a big cheer for carbon trading from its earliest corporate boosters - the fraudsters at Enron - who giddily predicted it would "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries" and would be "good for Enron stock?"

Save for the now-defunct Enron, all the other big investment houses, some of which have paid back their bailout loans but not the unimaginable amounts of cash they cost the global
economy, are enthusiastically gearing up for mandatory carbon trading.

Many are spending big money lobbying U.S. politicians to deliver it, complete with all the exotic investment opportunities it will provide.
That's because carbon trading - cap-and-trade - amounts to creating a new stock market out of, pardon the pun, thin air.

Governments in North America are about to create a new trading commodity - carbon dioxide - by putting a price on its emission into the atmosphere, along with several other greenhouse gases, when fossil fuels are burned for energy.

The basic stock unit of this new market worth, potentially, trillions of dollars, will be a carbon permit - the market cost of emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless gas, which can then be traded by businesses and governments - theoretically - to meet their emission reduction targets.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Europe already has a carbon market, the Emissions Trading Scheme, which has not only failed to lower emissions (the global recession did a much better job of that), but is beset by
multi-billion-dollar frauds.

Meanwhile, the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, where developed countries can obtain carbon credits by investing in third-world emission reduction schemes, is rife with
allegations of corruption, profiteering and fraud.

The major problems are that many of the claimed emission reductions are phoney, or would have happened anyway, without carbon trading.

If all this causes you to think that maybe carbon trading isn't such a good idea, then you have to ask yourself:

Why do U.S. President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and so many other politicians across North America, keep insisting that it is?

In fact, cap-and-trade is, demonstrably, such a bad idea that even a carbon tax would be better, in the sense of being the lesser of two evils.

Or, put another way, the least stupid way of doing something stupid.
Not Phooled Either
Comment by Teresa Wild on 29th May 2010
I, too, am glad to read this well-researched article. Having studied the sciences myself, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the best thing we can do is accept that the planet can take care of itself and, that as members of the diverse life here on Earth, we should not interfere with its delicate balance. Geoengineering is the worst nightmare imaginable, and it is being conducted in the name of AGW mitigation. I do not believe for a second that this agenda is for our health or survival, although that is what they would have us believe. Big Pharma wants us sick, Big Oil wants us enslaved, and the Neo-Eugenicists want us dead. If we realize these truths, then we can understand why the Globalists are inflicting the current world-wide environmental disasters upon us. They are mad, and have long since sold out their own humanity for so-called profit and power. The good news is that more and more of us know now who they are and what they are doing, and because of this, they are worried that they won't be able to fool us much longer. Long live free speech! Use it or lose it.
Are Students Learning About Corruption Of Climate Science?
Comment by Aphool Imnaught on 29th May 2010
Are Students Learning About The Corruption Of Climate Science?

Biased Information Continues

The mainstream media actively promoted global warming, then effectively ignored evidence of corrupt climate science & essentially ignored the whitewash investigations of the activities of members of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) & members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

They promoted Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” yet ignored the evidence of major scientific errors.

They quickly condemned Martin Durkin’s documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” because of one small error on a graph. Durkin withheld the DVD until the error was corrected.

Al Gore’s movie is still shown uncorrected in most schools, although a UK court ordered the government to have teachers advise students of the bias & errors.

It appears little has changed in the schools. Some teachers are giving both sides of the story, but they appear to be the exception. But why would a teacher change or be willing to present both sides?

Governments continue to push the arguments based on the IPCC research. They were complicit in the whitewash investigations, & need the tax & control Cap & Trade provides.

Most of the change in the schools comes from students who do some investigation often triggered by YouTube videos. In the UK court case the student complained to his father about having to watch Gore’s movie more than once.

Their Questions Tell a Tale

Some come from other countries, but most are from the US. Usually they seek answers to written questions.

Most of the time they are researching the skeptics view. Interestingly, very few requests are from university or science students. Most are in social studies but a surprising number are doing English essays. ...Most clearly accept the government global warming position. Most have seen Al Gore’s movie, but none appear aware of the errors.

An Example

The following is just one example of the type of questions asked, with answers. The questions are generally typical, however, number three is particularly interesting. It isn’t clear if the student is aware of the complexity of the associated ideas. ...Answers are in italics & cursory

1. Do you believe that global warming is caused by mankind?

No. The claim is that human produced CO2 is the cause of warming. The problem is we produce such a minuscule amount relative to natural production that it is impossible to detect it within the crude measures of these sources. For example, the amount we produce is less than the error of the estimate for three natural sources including the oceans, soils & rotting vegetation. More important, it is assumed that an increase in CO2 results in an increase in temperature. Every record shows that exactly the opposite happens. The temperature increases before CO2.

2. Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad?

The world has been warmer many times in the past & survived. Whenever change occurs there are winners & losers. Overall history shows warming creates better conditions for life on earth that is the flora & fauna, which includes humans. For example, more plants animals & people die of cold than warm.

3. Can global warming create an ice age?

Ice ages are marked by growth of ice sheets. The idea that warming can produce them recognizes that somehow you must have more snow survive the summer melt. This argument is based on the idea that glaciations are either produced by cooler temperatures with less winter snow but less summer melt, or by warmer temperatures that result in more evaporation, more snowfall &, even though more melts in the summer, the net survival amount is an increase.

4. Are global warming & climate change the same thing?

Yes & no. Global warming is one type of climate change. When temperatures began to decline in 2001 & CO2 continued to increase they stopped talking about warming & began talking about climate change. This then allowed them to point at any change & claim it was caused by human activity.

5. What role do natural forces play in the current global warming trend?

All the warming over time & now is caused by natural forces, primarily the sun. Even the IPCC admit that warming up to about 1950 was over 50% due to the sun. Since then they say with 90% certainty that human CO2 is the cause. They base this claim on the output of computer models that ignore most changes in solar mechanisms & many other factors such as variation in water vapor, by far the most important greenhouse gas.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/23412
Thank You
Comment by Aphool Imnaught on 28th May 2010
Such a relief to hear that someone out there is not walking around in a hypnotic trance and sees the carbon game for the global pyramid scheme it is. After all, a real commodity requires handling, management, and can be messy whereas this one is like the emperor's New Carbon clothes, invisible, abstract, hypothetical and the ultimate con that makes fools of us all.