(28 Oct 09) “……Shame on us all: on us in the media and on our politicians. Despite thousands of news reports, interviews, analyses, critiques and commentaries from journalists, what has the inquiring, intellectually sceptical media told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? And despite countless speeches, addresses, interviews, doorstops, moralising sermons from government ministers, pleas from Canberra for an outcome at Copenhagen, opposition criticism of government policy, what have our elected representatives told us about the potential details of a Copenhagen treaty? With just over 40 days until more than 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, activists and journalists from more than 190 countries attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, we know nothing. Nothing about a climate change treaty that the Rudd government is keen to sign and one that will bind this country for years to come……In a sense, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a UN body responsible for implementing the treaty obligations. But the difference is that we usually understand the details of the obligations and the power ceded. Now read the 181-page draft treaty. It is impossible to fully understand the convoluted UN verbiage……” Beware the UN's Copenhagen plot, Janet Albrechtesen, The Australian “……Yet even those incomprehensible clauses point to some nasty surprises that no politician has told us about…..Clause after complicated clause sets out the requirement that developed countries such as Australia pay their “adaptation debt” to developing countries. Clause 33 on page 39 says that by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be at least $US67 billion ($73bn), or in the range of $US70bn to $US140bn a year….Ask yourself this: why has our government failed to explain the possible text of a treaty it wants Australia to sign? There has been no address from any Rudd minister to explain the draft treaty. No 3000-word essay from the thoughtful PM. No speech in parliament. No interview. No press release. Nothing….So why the silence? Are they hiding the details of this deal from us because most of the polls now suggest that action on climate change is becoming politically unpalatable? And what explains the media's failure to report and analyse the only source document that offers any idea of what may happen in Copenhagen? Ignorance? Laziness? Stubborn adherence to the orthodox government line that a deal in Copenhagen is critical? An obsession with the politics of climate change rather than policy? Perhaps now our PM and our Climate Change Minister can spare a few moments to tell us about the details they know about but have so far chosen not to tell us about……”
(28 Oct 09) “.......So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened. Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate? The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate. There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage....... It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way....” The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us , Melanie Phillips, MailOn Line “......But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners.... It was to destroy Britain's identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country's. A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour......So that's how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this? Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP - by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.
Copenhagen negotiating text: 200 pages to save the world? David Adam, The Guardian
(26 Oct 09) The draft document includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change to date. It is a blueprint to save the world. And yet it is long, confusing and contradictory. Negotiators have released a draft version of a new global agreement on climate change , which is widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from the ravages of global warming. Running to some 200 pages, the draft agreement is being discussed for the first time this week as officials from 190 countries gather in Bangkok for the latest round of UN talks. There is only one short meeting after this before they meet in Copenhagen aiming to hammer out a final version .The draft text consolidates and reorders hundreds of changes demanded by countries to the previous version, which saw it balloon to an unmanageable 300 pages. It has no official status yet, and must be formally approved before negotiators can start to whittle it down. Here, we present key, edited sections from the text and attempt to decipher what the words mean.The text includes sections on the traditional sticking points that have delayed progress on climate change for a decade or longer.
• How much are rich countries willing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions , and by when?
• Will large developing nations such as China make an effort to put at least a dent in their soaring levels of pollution?
• How much money must flow from the developed world to developing countries to grease the wheels and secure their approval? How much to compensate for the impact of past emissions , and how much to help prevent future emissions?
According to the UN rules, for a new treaty to be agreed, every country must sign up – a challenging requirement. The new treaty is designed to follow the Kyoto protocol , the world's existing treaty to regulate greenhouse gases, the first phase of which expires in 2012. Because the US did not ratify Kyoto, the climate talks have been forced on to awkward parallel tracks, with one set of negotiations, from which the US is excluded, debating how the treaty could be extended past 2012. This new text comes from the second track, which lays out a plan to include all countries in long-term co-operative action. Behind the scenes, pessimism about the Copenhagen talks is rising. Despite references in the text to a global goal and collective emission cuts of 25-40% by 2020 for rich countries, many observers believe there is little chance such an approach will succeed. Stuart Eizenstat, who negotiated Kyoto for the US, said: "Copenhagen is more likely to be a way station to a final agreement, where each country posts the best that it can do... The key thing is let's not go into Copenhagen with all the same kind of guns blazing like we did in Kyoto." A top European official told the Guardian: "We've moved on from the idea that we can negotiate on targets . That's naive and just not the way the deal will be done. The best we can get is that countries will put in what they want to commit to." Once all the carbon offsets – buying pollution credits instead of cutting emissions – and "fudges" are taken into account, the outcome is likely to be that emissions in 2020 from rich countries will be broadly similar to those in 1990, he said. "That's really scary stuff."
(26 Oct 09) This is the full 200 page text of the draft document up for discussion at Copenhagen in December, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(25 Oct 09) .....A study in Sweden showed that 85 % of the rapists are immigrants. Only 3 % of the rapists are convicted. Twenty surburbs around Stockholm had on average 54 % immigrants in 1997.....” Violent immigrant attacks on Swedes are breaking records again from eurabia.cz “......In 2008 it increased to 68 %, they expect to be 100 % full of immigrants in perhaps five years from now. Mass immigration had doubles the last two years since the new non-socialist alliance took power..... Why call it "integration" when they add more immigrants until a place is full of only immigrants? The real meaning of the word appears to be "replacing the population". The politicians must be judged only on what they do, not what they promise or say.
(19 Oct 09) “….Among economists and business leaders there is unease about cap and trade, a system that has already created a derivatives markets of the kind that brought the global financial system close to collapse. A scheme that looked like a stroke of genius in the 90s is falling out of fashion. "We'll have a financial crisis in emissions at some point," Kenneth Rogoff tells Focus. "There'll be derivatives and all these unemployed investment bankers will then go work on carbon trading and come up with ... products which will lead to a crisis." The professor of public policy and economics at Harvard and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund claims he isn't alone in this view. "You'll find few economists who disagree," Rogoff says. Indeed, the economists who addressed a global editors forum in Copenhagen last weekend were unanimous in their view that a cap and trade system was unlikely to reduce emissions, would be open to rent-seeking and, in many countries, corruption…..Nobel laureate and Columbia University economics professor Joseph Stiglitz told the forum the global financial crisis had reshaped the concerns of economists. "We've seen the corruption and crony capitalism that has been evident in the advanced industrialised countries ... It makes you very worried," he said. "What we realised now is the allocation of emissions permits is a market that is a couple of trillion dollars a year. So we're giving away, allocating that amount of money, and that just attracts the worst kind of behaviour that you can imagine……" Tax carbon rather than trade in it, Rebecca Weisser, The Australian “…..Stiglitz also said emissions trading would not do the one thing that was needed to drive change towards a low-carbon economy: set a stable price for carbon that would make it viable for companies to invest in low-carbon power plants and infrastructure. So, despite all the money spent trading in permits, which would add to the cost of everything from petrol to beer, there would still not be the certainty business needed to drive investment. "Once you have emissions trading, permits will become an asset class and can go from anywhere between 30 and 200 (dollars); they'll be very unstable….Zedillo believes trying to negotiate an emissions trading scheme could doom the Copenhagen talks to failure. "There is a reason the world has been unable to reach an agreement ... to reduce emissions and the reason is we took the wrong track," he said. "Either it will be a useless system because we will have a huge number of permits for everybody to make everybody happy or we will not be able to negotiate it."…… Ernesto Zedillo, who is professor of international economics at Yale University and director of the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, says setting a price on carbon rather than negotiating on emissions quotas could be a circuit-breaker. "If you recognise we are very close to failure, I think we should have a plan B and in my view plan B would be an agreement, an understanding that opens the possibility ... to negotiate a harmonised carbon price…..”
(19 Oct 09) “.....Politics makes for strange bedfellows, but the alliance that has pushed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill to the point of ultimate success is surely the most bizarre alliance in the history of Australian politics. The driving force behind this campaign to decarbonise Australia has been the Greens. Although they are small in terms of numbers they are extraordinarily influential...... Notwithstanding their personal prosperity the Greens seek to reduce the standard of living of other Australians (often in states far from Sydney and Melbourne, such as Western Australia) through measures that will reduce our productivity and progress.....Former High Court judge Ian Callinan described the situation thus: "Emissions regulation offers government an irresistible opportunity to centralise and control every aspect of our lives; on our roads, on our travels, in our workplaces, on our farms, in our forests and our mines, and, more threateningly, in our homes, constructed as they will be compelled to be, of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes......" Tax carbon to stop corruption, Peter Walsh, The Australian “.....So the socialist Left got behind the Greens at an early stage of the campaign..... In my time in politics I saw quite a bit of rent-seeking, but nothing compares in scale and scope with the rents that financial institutions of all kinds are pursuing in the emissions trading scheme at the heart of the CPRS Bill. This rent-seeking is quite brazen....The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change became a vast gravy train and the fraudulent use of statistics, as in the notorious hockeystick and most recently in the scandal of the Yamal tree rings, became the defining characteristic of its modus operandi......However, the most disreputable member of this unholy alliance is the so-called business community. In my time in politics I saw quite a bit of rent-seeking, but nothing compares in scale and scope with the rents that financial institutions of all kinds are pursuing in the emissions trading scheme at the heart of the CPRS Bill. This rent-seeking is quite brazen......”
(17 Oct 09) “.....While the rest of the world recoiled in horror at recent events in Guinea, where at least 150 pro-democracy supporters were killed and dozens of women publicly raped by government soldiers, China has sensed an opportunity to steal another march on Western competitors in Africa. China is preparing to throw the junta in Guinea a lifeline in the form of a multibillion-pound oil and mineral deal, financed largely by soft loans. Such policies have already served China well with rogue and discredited regimes from Angola to Sudan. The move comes as the European Union, spurred on by France, the former colonial power, and the African Union are considering sanctions against Guinea if its young military leader, Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, continues to renege on a deal to stand down in favour of free elections.....Beijing, meanwhile, was reported to be close to agreeing a deal, financed by its China International Fund, of about £4.4 billion covering a range of projects. Guinea, the world's largest exporter of bauxite, also has huge deposits of uranium, iron ore, diamonds and a host of other minerals. It is also believed to have significant off-shore oil reserves....China's policy of not linking trade, aid and investment to political reform or human rights has paid huge dividends so far....” China tightens grip on Africa with $4.4bn lifeline for Guinea junta, TimesOnline “.....In less than a decade it has created a footprint across the entire continent and secured a willing provider of much needed raw materials to power its economic growth. There is now barely a country on the continent that does not have a sizeable Chinese presence..... Annual trade between China and Africa is now put at £62 billion, more than four times the £15 billion that it reached in 2004. China has also written off billions of dollars of bad African debt and used its “war chest” of foreign currency reserves to cement new alliances and finance cut-rate loans and commercial lines of credit. There is only one condition: any money provided must be used to pay Chinese companies and buy Chinese goods that flood the continent's bustling street markets... Ordinary Africans are far less enthusiastic than the governing elites..... A recent report by the Oxford-based group Rights and Accountability in Development highlighted that 90 per cent of the output of Congo's mineral-rich Katanga province now went to China. However, it said, Congolese workers accused them of flouting local laws, poor pay, atrocious safety records and no welfare or social development policies....”
REPOSTED FROM AUGUST 20TH
(20 Aug 2009) “.........Reminiscent of the West's imperial push in the 18th and 19th centuries - but on a much more dramatic, determined scale - China's rulers believe Africa can become a 'satellite' state, solving its own problems of over-population and shortage of natural resources at a stroke. With little fanfare, a staggering 750,000 Chinese have settled in Africa over the past decade. More are on the way. The strategy has been carefully devised by officials in Beijing, where one expert has estimated that China will eventually need to send 300 million people to Africa to solve the problems of over-population and pollution. The plans appear on track. Across Africa, the red flag of China is flying. Lucrative deals are being struck to buy its commodities - oil, platinum, gold and minerals. New embassies and air routes are opening up. The continent's new Chinese elite can be seen everywhere, shopping at their own expensive boutiques, driving Mercedes and BMW limousines, sending their children to exclusive private schools. The pot-holed roads are cluttered with Chinese buses, taking people to markets filled with cheap Chinese goods. More than a thousand miles of new Chinese railroads are crisscrossing the continent, carrying billions of tons of illegally-logged timber, diamonds and gold..... Fuelling its own boom at home, China is also desperate for new markets to sell goods. And Africa, with non-existent health and safety rules to protect against shoddy and dangerous goods, is the perfect destination......” How China's taking over Africa and why the west should be VERY worried . Andrew Malone, MailOnline “...... The result of China's demand for raw materials and its sales of products to Africa is that turnover in trade between Africa and China has risen from £5million annually a decade ago to £6billion today. However, there is a lethal price to pay. There is a sinister aspect to this invasion..... Almost 30 years ago, Britain pulled out of Zimbabwe - as it had done already out of the rest of Africa, in the wake of Harold Macmillan's 'wind of change' speech. Today, Mugabe says: 'We have turned East, where the sun rises, and given our backs to the West, where the sun sets.' Despite Britain's commendable colonial legacy of a network of roads, railways and schools, the British are now being shunned. According to one veteran diplomat: 'China is easier to do business with because it doesn't care about human rights in Africa - just as it doesn't care about them in its own country. All the Chinese care about is money.'..... In Angola, the government has agreed that 70 per cent of tendered public works must go to Chinese firms, most of which do not employ Angolans. As well asenticing hundreds of thousands to settle in Africa, they have even shipped Chinese prisoners to produce the goods cheaply. In Kenya, for example, only ten textile factories are still producing, compared with 200 factories five years ago, as China undercuts locals in the production of 'African' souvenirs. Where will it all end? As far as Beijing is concerned, it will stop only when Africa no longer has any minerals or oil to be extracted from the continent.......”
Note: The US defence budget 2009 = $515.4 billion
(12 Oct 09) “.....The US dollar is falling sharply against currencies around the world. Since March it has lost 9 per cent of its value against the yen, 17 per cent against the Canadian loonie, 18 per cent against the euro and 40 per cent against the Australian dollar..... The divergence between Obama's Nobel honour and the marketplace repricing of his country's future would appear to be a stark lesson in the difference between hope and reality. Hope for Obama's plans may soar, but his ability to meet those hopes is shrivelling with the value of the currency..... even a political sympathiser of Obama's has warned that America could be about to suffer "a punishing dollar crisis". A former US deputy Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton, Roger Altman, wrote at the weekend that while the US recession may be a problem today, it pales into insignificance next to the danger of America's vast government debt.....” Obama's peace shattered as dollar takes a pounding , Peter Hartcher, The Canberra Times “..... The "dismal deficit outlook poses a huge longer-term threat", he wrote in the Financial Times. "Indeed, it is just a matter of time before global financial markets reject this fiscal trajectory." The root problem is simple. The world increasingly doubts that the US Government can repay its debts. Altman set out why: "For 2011 and beyond, the fiscal challenge is fearsome. A combination of prior tax cuts, years of high spending and a brutal recession have produced the worst budget conditions in 75 years." The national debt is projected to hit 85 per cent of the value of the total US economy in 10 years from now. Merely paying the interest on this sum would consume as much money as the annual US defence budget . A debt ratio around this level is the threshold where debt becomes unsustainable and snowballs, and where countries lose control of their destinies..... Its relative decline is unarguable. At the end of World War II, the US economy accounted for half the global economy. Today it is somewhat less than a quarter. Now, against the rise of China and India, its relative power is slipping again.....”
(14 Oct 09) “….The Rudd government's emissions trading scheme will lead to new financial products that will be exploited by the whiz-kids who helped precipitate the global financial crisis, a key participant in the ETS debate has warned. And a union boss active in the debate has mocked what he says is the Left's new-found faith in market mechanisms to tackle climate change….. Lehman Brothers, the finance house that collapsed in September last year, taking market confidence down with it across the world, was a well-known proponent of carbon credit schemes. "The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will create new financial derivatives that will no doubt be exploited by the same people who got us into the global financial crisis," Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Mitch Hooke told The Australian……” Emissions trading scheme's 'casino chicanery' , The Australian "….The creation of increasingly sophisticated financial instruments in the form of securities or derivatives -- the product of which can be justifiably described as casino chicanery in leveraging credit and managing risk in order to increase profit -- helped get us into a global mess… Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes expressed concern about artificial increases in carbon prices. "I find it amusing that so many people on the Left think that the market is going to solve the environmental woes, and essentially that's what the ETS is," he said. "Often when you're dealing with responses to climate change, the biggest cheerleaders of carbon taxes have been the banks and audit firms. "It's almost as if you have firms like KPMG and Deutsche Bank marching down the street with the Trots…."The sale of carbon will eventually become a global commodity….”
(14 Oct 09) “…..The Left has a gift for using clever language to push its causes. The trick is to start with a literal truth, a platitude so steeped in emotion it tugs on the heartstrings of human nature, something that just about every sane person will agree on. But what makes the use of a literal truth so seductive is the way it is used to hide a substantive untruth. A bit of intellectual rigour lifts the cloak on these dishonest word games…..When Frank Brennan released his report recommending a federal human rights act for Australia last week, supporters of an HRA used more of their literal-truth word games to hide substantive untruths. The emotional bait this time, and an incontrovertible truth, is that we all care about protecting human rights. Then they slide seamlessly from a truth to a falsehood by claiming that Australians support the introduction of a federal HRA. George Williams, a long-time advocate of an HRA, said of the response to the Brennan report: “Australians spoke not only in overwhelming numbers but with a clear voice, with 87 per cent supporting a human rights act.” Brennan said much the same thing on this page last Friday. Catherine Branson, from the Australian Human Rights Commission, said: “The Australian people want it; the Australian government should now accept that and act on it…..” Human rights platitudes , Janet Albrechtsen. The Australian “…..These statements are untrue or, at the very least, completely untested. There is no evidence that Australians support an HRA in overwhelming numbers. Even the numbers that Brennan and his cheer squad rely on are deceptive. The figures are set out in the final appendix to the Brennan report: of 35,014 submissions, 27,112 were what Brennan calls “campaign submissions” (more than 25,000 came from GetUp! and Amnesty International supporting an HRA). That leaves 7900 other individual submissions and 4200 submissions opposed to an HRA. In other words, put aside the orchestrated campaign activists and more than half of submissions were opposed to an HRA. If there were overwhelming support from Australians for an HRA, supporters would happily put their proposal to the Australian people. Yet they are opposed to hearing from that democratic voice…..In February this year, Brennan conceded that the Victorian Charter of Rights - another model for his proposed human rights act - was “a device for the delivery of a soft-Left sectarian agenda”. Emotional calls for a simple dialogue are a deliberate ruse to hide that pursuit: the fundamental transfer of power to unelected judges. The real view of those campaigning for an HRA is to hell with old-fashioned democracy. You will never hear them utter that literal and substantive truth….”
(10 Oct 09) Best presentation yet on the climate change debate The Madness of an ETS
Far from ensuring higher standards of human rights, the Brennan report will divide the nation and undermine the Constitution
(10 Oct 09) “....The Rudd government is under pressure to introduce a human rights act, transfer significant new powers to judges and launch campaign to entrench a rights culture in the community..... Despite its qualifications, caution on social and economic rights and gentle start on a long escalator, this report is ambitious for a recasting of Australian governance. Its aim is to entrench values enshrined in human rights ideology. Every vital institution is affected: public service, the parliament and the courts. For the human rights lobby, with its long-run plan to transform Australia, this is an important start...This report, in effect, seeks the obliteration of the Howard cultural legacy. It makes clear the driving force behind the submissions was the hated Howard agenda of national security laws, the Northern Territory intervention and tough asylum-seeker laws. The intent of the human rights lobby is to change Australia's system of government to prevent such measures being introduced in future.... The terminology is deceptive. The human rights debate is about politics: it is a device to achieve social, political and economic change opposed by a majority of the population by recourse to human rights law as interpreted by the courts . The Brennan report will further divide the country..... There is no public demand for such action. Research commissioned by the inquiry found that only 10 per cent of people felt their rights had been infringed and most felt their rights were not threatened. Yet our system of government is to be recast. This report testifies to the blind utopianism of the human rights cause... The report is revealing and unconsciously patronising....” Human rights report poisoned chalice . Paul Kelly, The Australian “.....The uneducated Australian people are consumed by "complacency" that is "not conducive to the achievement of a human rights culture". They must be re-educated in a massive campaign at school and university so they understand the need to respect "the dignity, culture and traditions of other people". The contempt is breathtaking. The spectre of Australian racism and a flawed Constitution that disrespects human rights are the assumptions that underpin this mission to change Australia's political culture.... Former NSW premier Bob Carr says: "I would assume there will be a great deal of scepticism within the Rudd cabinet about something that reeks of such 1980s enthusiasms. There is no evidence of a groundswell from the Australian community in favour of a quantum increase in judge-made law." ... The platform the committee envisages for human rights advocacy is enormous. It wants a definitive list of Australia's human rights obligations drawn up within two years. It requires a "statement of compatibility" with human rights provisions attached to every bill.....In advocating a human rights act it wants coverage to include all people in Australia, not just Australian citizens. This means our system of government will be changed partly to secure the human rights of people who are not citizens. It illustrates the human rights mindset. The more Australians understand this issue, the more suspicious they will become.....”
(6 Oct 09) “......Carbon is set to be the next bubble, one that could make the US housing market crash look like a picnic. One reason the US market collapsed was that no one was minding the store when companies were trading exotic and little understood derivatives, such as the credit default swaps that almost destroyed American International Group. Carbon credits are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by selling carbon as futures or forward contracts at a certain quantity and price. They are derivatives; bets on the future. Commissioner Bart Chilton from the US Commodities Future Trading Commission told The Financial Times last year that carbon could be the world's biggest derivatives market in five years. Experts estimate it to be worth between $2 trillion and $3.5 trillion....We are yet to see measures minimising potential conflicts of interest with carbon trading, conflicts that echo those perpetrated by ratings agencies that left capital markets in smoking ruins. Impossible with carbon? How about financial engineers creating "junk" carbon contracts with a relatively high risk of not being fulfilled, similar to subprime mortgages? Or consultants offering advice on developing carbon offset projects and then, like the ratings agencies, earning fees to verify emissions from those projects? Or investment banks taking equity stakes in carbon offset specialists and then selling their services as carbon brokers and analysts? Without control, carbon market will bubble, Leon Gettler. The Age “......How many Chinese walls do you need to stop investment banks making millions managing both ends of cap and trade transactions?... Given the talent that investment banks have for making money out of thin air, it is not too difficult to see them concocting "green" products that they can flog to retail investors. Already, the carbon market is starting to have echoes of the subprime debacle where investment banks made enormous profits selling dodgy securities.... The big four accounting firms in the US — PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Ernst & Young and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu — are beefing up their climate desks in the wake of the US House of Representatives passing legislation opening the way for carbon trading. We can expect similar developments here if the Senate passes the Federal Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme.....an emissions trading market has one key problem: unlike other commodities markets, it is politically created and managed so it is vulnerable to vested interests and regulatory capture. As the subprime meltdown showed, politicians of all persuasions are susceptible. There is no reason to think they will be different with carbon.....”
Carbon credits will be available for planting trees, say, but what happens when saplings are eaten by wallabies or mature forests are consumed by bushfires?
(6 Oct 09) “.....In effect a new religion has grown out of secular humanism. Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytising the new faith.... In discussions with colleagues, arguments always seem to come down to “But the models show …” Those who use this argument seldom have modelling experience themselves and share the lay public's naive faith in the value of large computer models. I have been a fluid dynamical modeller and I know how flaky numerical models can be for even a relatively small chunk of fluid like the Derwent Estuary. The models are highly unstable and need to be carefully cosseted in order to perform at all realistically.... Why then would such an over-damped model predict recent global temperature increases so well (which it does)? The answer is that an over-damped model will always regress to some sort of mean or trend line. Climate models include a number of adjustable parameters and these are tweaked to tune the model to known data. My belief is that early models did not show much increase in global temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the reason set out above. However, an ingenious trick was used to make this happen.... A scientific theory is not tested merely by looking for confirmations but by conscientiously trying to “break” the theory, by trying to disprove it. The AGW theory is encapsulated in the IPCC assessment reports. The models discussed in these reports have not been tested in this way....” Climate Modelling Nonsense , John Reid. Quadrant “.....The implication is that climate prediction, as it is carried out by those organisations which come under the aegis of the IPCC, is not science. It is a superstition similar to astrology or homeopathy. The IPCC is promoting the AGW proposition as if it were an established scientific theory, when it is not.If the IPCC were a pharmaceutical company it could face fraud charges for doing this. This is a good analogy. The IPCC claims to have diagnosed a planetary disorder, global warming, and has proposed a remedy, the limitation of man-made carbon dioxide production. They have produced no convincing scientific evidence that either the diagnosis or the cure is valid..... When a political structure is set up which is based on a lie, we can expect further lies to proliferate. Meanwhile, less influential groups such as farmers can expect to be hounded by “carbon police”. Whatever the status of AGW scientifically, it is certainly a political truth. It is now a key plank in the platforms of two out of three of the major political parties in this country and the third genuflects piously from time to time. Like Chartism and communism in earlier times, AGW is providing a rallying cry for reform.... This country and the world at large have many real political, demographic and environmental issues to contend with. We do not need to create problems where none exist. The present hysteria diverts money and attention away from problems which do need to be solved..... People are entitled to entertain whatever apocalyptic view of the future they choose, but such ideas have nothing to do with science. Climate prediction is not science, it is pseudo-science, and sooner or later more real scientists are going to wake up to this fact. In the conduct of human affairs it is surely preferable that we base our actions on reason and evidence rather than on piety and myth.....”