Imagine an unpopular, impotent, and fragile UK Government, trying to make political capital out of a looming crisis. To avoid being embarrassed by criticism of its shallow policies, it appoints an independent panel of experts, to which it defers controversial decisions. Now imagine that the panel proposes measures from which its …
The climate resistance blog?
Good to hear there is a blog to resist the climate. I was worried about it before but now I know there is a blog in place I can rest assured that the climate is being resisted to the utmost of human capacity.
I swear, if we get ourselves wiped out by the consequences of our action (or otherwise) on climate change, we will absolutely have deserved it.
Of course the government takes advice of its croonies and presents it as facts so as to give them tax payers money, how else do you expect them to get very well paying jobs after they leave office. Their pension is crap you know!
And once the good old Gov has made all this above board and these companies are raking in billions, how many jobs for the boys will this create?
"Would we lie to you?"
Yes, frankly, you would.
No conflicts of interest, my arse.
More government horseshit
If those on the panel are scrutinised as much as the man-made climate change skeptics, then the profiteering will quietly go away. That's because they started out with the idea that climate change is man made and ignore anyone who disagrees. Zero scrutiny of their arguments and tar them all with the same brush.
As El Reg states:
"if greenhouse gas emissions are capped by law, then the legal right to emit these gasses becomes a commodity that can be traded".
They want to create another economic bubble, but this time around the environment. They're creating a bubble with legislation, not growing tulips. The size of the cap becomes hugely economically significant. Will they raise it or lower it and by how much? There will be huge financial interests opposed to the removal of the cap.
Bubbles burst eventually, even when backed by government.
This one is bonkers.
It's a question of trust.
Do we trust them?
Where the protests?
How come the British public puts up with this? Are they so busy scoffing their faces or do they really hug trees and worship Gaia? Or are Britons so lacking in balls that they cannot protest because they fear some silly camera is watching them?
Shouldn't El Reg's reporting on climate change be put under some scrutiny?
Most of what is being written here on the subject has been rebunked, but that won't be mentioned and, if I go by my experience, comments stating that have at times little chance to be published.
Invent the sin, sell the penance.
This is so like the medievall 'indulgences' scam.
Invent the sin, sell the penance. Nice work if you can get it.
Paris - because she knows all about "sins of emission".
A nugget of purest green
Worth more than other nuggets in the current climate
Mine's the one with the re-runs on GOLD
The effect of dirty dirty oil
Has been to drive the desperately seeking eco-vamps into the glitzy world of the banksters night clubs, where they have watched in amazement and shock and awe the antics, the workings of fiat currencies, of how to create and manipulate credit (best with government collusion and the backing of coercion), about accounting standards for respectability - and best of all, skimming a big fat cut. Meanwhile, the banksters' day jobs have turned into begging governments to pay off their gambling debts known as OTC derivatives, and I predict the eco-vamps will soon learn this form of irresponsibility too.
Humanity's capacity for stupidity and greed never fail to amaze me time and time again (guess im just too much of an optimist when it comes to the human condition).
How long before this cap raises to 100% and all emissions are traded and capped?
Fuck it, i dont even want to oppose this.... im just going to sit back and laugh my ass off at the futile hope that someday mankind actually tries to solve problems by... solving them, instead of resoting to idiotic schemes.
Does it really matter?
If the government actually listened to these advisory panels, they would not be upgrading cannabis back to a class b drug.
Carbon Trading is GREAT
People have been cleaning up due to this nonsense for a long time now, I made an absolute shedload of cash trading the Dec-07/Dec-08 EUA spread, spent it on loads of long-distance flights, expensive plastic nonsense I don't need and a sports car. Kerching!
Conflict of interest
So who is best to go on the commitee? People who know nothing about the products or industry?
A politician fits in perfectly!
There is always a trade-off, no one with any useful knowledge is ever devoid of interests in those areas. I mean, would you expect the co-editor of the climate resistance blog to right a balanced article related to climate change?
imagine? IMAGINE??????? FFS why imagine? I've been observing it for over 2 decades.
Been there, done that . . .
An equally pernicious scandal has been running since 2002 - The Renewables Obligation, meant to encourage "clean, green" electricity generation. Set to cost consumers £1,000 million per year until 2025 (with government planning to extend it to 2035), it too is an artificial market.
The scheme is meant to enable Britain to "play its part" in "saving the planet" but there are no mechanisms for measuring whether emissions are actually being cut. No one really cares.
Advsors on the scheme were seconded to the (then) DTI by the wind-power industry, initally for two years but eventually for six, leaving only on retirement and with a gong.
Meanwhile, the same industry is paying members of Greenpeace and similar groups to discredit those who object in any way to wind-power construction projects. It makes the pharmcos look honest.
See e.g. page 19 of "Strange Bedfellows" (http://www.swap.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=86553)
The censoring of thousands of scientists against the idea of "manmade global warming" by the media and government is just astounding. Never in the history of the Soviet Union, East Germany or China such wide censorship achieved. What we are witnessing is Soviet-style cronyism, so it is no surprise to learn how much wealth and power Russia stands to gain from the the carbon market.
Already our politicians and bankers like Peter Mandelson and Nat Rothschild have been seen on holiday with the likes of Oleg Deripaska, and the EU wants to force countries like Poland to buy energy from Russia instead of using their own resources.
Our politicians are selling our freedoms away. They are fed up with the idea of democracy and prefer a totalitarian government while keeping the masses entertained on bread and circuses, but leave us nothing to save by increasing the cost of living.
The British public don't protest. And if they do the British media doesn't publish that it happened. Sorry, but no solution to this one. Until there's a revolution.
Oh, you can't even adopt a "if you can't beat them then join them" approach, as individuals are not allowed to trade in carbon credits.
I'm sure the author would support this solution. No credits, no market, no trading, no conflicts of interest.
The simple truth
What Lord May is quoted as saying about the division between supporters and skeptics of global warming concern, unfortunately, is nothing more than the simple truth. However, given the costs of combatting global warming by doing without energy if we can't replace fossil fuels with wind power and the like, ordinary voters and politicians will demand extraordinary proof (which won't be available until it's too late) to make such sacrifices. The obvious solution is nuclear power, which lets us have as much energy as we want, without carbon dioxide emissions: and there's gold in that for everyone, as energy need no longer be in limited supply.
Interesting article, but the question is: so what? I mean, since when have governments (or not) being doing exactly that, in any and all areas where money might be involved? No novelty here, obviously.
A little "correction":
"carbon offsetting – paying poor people not to develop their economies"
If it was that, it would be fine, but I suspect you are wrong. It should read something like "carbon offsetting -- paying stupidly rich people from poor countries not to develop their economies". If the money of such offsetting DID go to societal improvement and all that, it would be better than developing the economy (which is probably unsustainable). In fact, a very few people in the poor countries will see this money, and the rest will live on in shit as they have since forever: anyone who believes "trickle down" economics has drool trickling down their chins, or have never seen how the Third World works.
"The censoring of thousands of scientists against the idea of "manmade global warming" by the media and government is just astounding"
What an idiotic thing you just said, regardless of whether man-made global warming is real or not. I suspect you are also a creationist, or closely allied with one, because that's exactly what they say once every five minutes. You are bullshitting.
Give us a list of at least 2001 (less than that and it's not "thousands") climate scientists who are being censored, and how. You can't probably give us 20, let alone 2000. If you can't, just shut up then.
ever heard of the global warming petition project with 31072 scientists having signed as of late?
That's what the "Carbon Market" is. An accounting solution to a real problem:
"Hot ashes for trees, hot air for a cool breeze, cold comfort for change."
Does that include Dr Zharkov like the Oregon petition? Or maybe it IS the Oregon Petition, rising from the dead...
Nothing new at all
SARS: Big FUD, international conferences,... lots of money to be made.... few deaths.
Bird flu: Big FUD, international conferences,... lots of money to be made.... few deaths.
Climate change is pretty much the same all over again.
Anyone that thinks scientists always speak the truth, or their perception of their truth, is a fool. Like almost everyone else in this world, scientists don't bite the hand that feeds.
The censoring is often self-censoring. There's money to be made by scientists too. Just link your study area to GW and you can easily get funding.
Who is profiting from climate change?
That would be anyone selling fossil fuel.
They make money selling the stuff, which is burnt, releasing CO2 and changing the climate. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
You mean the petition signed by 31,000 people over the past 10 years by anyone in the USA with a college degree, regardless of what subject their degree is in?! Just tick the box to say you have a college degree (and if you don't lie), then all of a sudden you're a 'climate scientist' !!!!
LOL. This is a classic example of the lengths the deniers will go to in an attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the ignorant. Maybe you should check the validity of the petitions you quote as evidence before you quote them. I seriously doubt there are 1/3 this number of qualified climate experts in the world.
dammit- I think I just exchanged a walk on part in a War for a lead role in a cage.
Agreement on both sides
The Kyoto protocol gave us the Clean Development Mechanism, through which poorer countries are paid not to emit greenhouse gases wealthier countries can't afford, or can't be bothered, to eliminate themselves. This is one of the "offsetting" schemes to which you refer.
Factories in China and India were, until recently, releasing fluorinated gases that have a much greater forcing effect that an equivalent mass of carbon dioxide. These factories were paid a total of $4.7bn to eliminate these gases from their emissions. The actual cost of their elimination was closer to $100m. ROI = 4700%, which is tasty pork in anyone's language.
Yvo de Boer apparently has no problem with this: "The Clean Development Mechanism prompts a company to do something that it would not normally do, and then the company starts to make a profit".
You don't have to be a "climate change sceptic" to find this obscene. My source for the above information was George Monbiot:
Unfortunately your outrage at "conflicts of interest" is going to get you nowhere. In fact I'm not at all surprised that these people laughed in your face and hung up on you. If the government proposes to reduce carbon (or equivalent) emissions, they need to speak to people who know how to do so. And, in turn, these people know how to make outlandish sums of money in the process.
So don't blame the companies or advisory boards. Blame the pusillanimous governments and international bodies that devise ineffective legislation and easily-outwitted regulatory schemes.
Either that, or found your own advisory board, composed of taxi-drivers, plumbers and journalists, all of whom are skilled in propounding strongly-held opinions, but, I submit, know next to nothing about how to get the job done. At least it would be untainted by accusations of cronyism.
Same s**t different day!
Seen it all before I'm afraid! Particularly in Europe, Maximum working temperature, Intelligent Transport the list goes on........
Of course, oil companies funding sceptical scientists to try and prove that AGW is bunk is not a conflict of interest at all. Oh no. That's just keeping the establishment on its toes, evoking the spirit of Galileo etc etc.
Do you have any conflicts of interest to declare, Ben?
Welcome to Capitalism...
Step 1) Find an underdeveloped niche in an existing market, or, better still, a new market.
Step 2) Exploit it like mad
Step 3) Rake in the profits
Step 4) Sit on your profits when the niche or market eventually goes belly up
The main problem I have with the AGW argument is the lack of moderate voices. On the one side you've got the sceptics who either (a) deny global warming is occurring in the first place, or (b) claim it's a natural process, the earth's suffered worse conditions in the past, and nothing we do will have any effect whatsoever; and on the other hand you've got the greenies who'd very much like us to return to pre-industrialised society - cars and roads are evil, aeroplanes are the devil incarnate, and anyone who is incredulous enough to burn anything should be faced with a stiff fine.
And separate from both camps you've got the businessmen described above who'll fall into whichever camp is most convenient to allow them to make a quick profit...
"Attention! You have been found guilty of unauthorised combustion of materials. £500, please!"
"You've got no evidence"
that isn't no....
"The main problem I have with the AGW argument is the lack of moderate voices."
How about the 95%+ of Climate Scientists (ie the ones not bought and paid for by the oil companies) and most scientifically enlightened people? Virtually every claim made by the deniers relies upon ignorance and lack of scientific knowledge.
The way you spit 'greenie' alludes that you're another ignorant who believes the hate fuelled trash spouted by the people that will do anything, say anything to 'disprove' AGW. There is only one known planet in the universe that can support human life. If looking after our only life support system makes you a 'greenie' then that doesn't make you some kind of pariah. Very few of the people who accept the vast wealth of peer reviewed science by credible climate scientists want to take the world back to pre-industrial conditions. Yet another of the foaming claims made by the deniers.
@Rob the gullible
"How about the 95%+ of Climate Scientists"
I'd double check your numbers Rob, rather than repeating what your mates say in the pub or what you read in the papers. If you do that, you'll notice that skepticism about this unproven hypothesis is widely shared in the scientific community.
Because they've kicked out everyone who disagrees with them (which is common in cults and extremist political factions) then naturally everyone in officially state-funded Climate Science is 100% agreed on AGW. I wouldn't expect anything else.
If you're a "climate scientist" and you dissent from the AGW mainstream and the AGW payola will go to someone else.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
So thousands of scientists disagree. They must all be paid by Big Oil or Aliens in UFOs, right?
There are inherent conflicts of interest on this issue
I know this might sound like a statement of the bleedin' obvious, but in this whole sorry saga there are INHERENT conflicts of interest - we have scientists on the IPCC who are being paid to research climate change - so .... if one of their tests actually proved there was no climate change being caused by humans, they'd be out of a job..... hmmmm okay then better make sure the tests *definitely* show a degree of plausibility that the climate is being affected. Notice that no one has EVER come out with any concrete evidence that the climate is definitely being changed by humanity, only an 80% possibility. That way, when we're all paying fifteen quid a unit for electricity, twenty quid a litre for petrol and living like we did in the stone age, these "independent scientists" living in their huge ivory towers (with heated swimming pools) will comment "oh well, actually we got it wrong - there wasnt so much of a danger after all". These scientists actions speak far louder than words, and if they were all so concerned about climate change, they wouldnt be maintaining mansions, they wouldnt be using aircraft to fly all over the world to attend conferences and they would be quite happy to show if they had any hidden agendas for climate change. We are being robbed in the name of the environment and it's high time organisations such as the CCC and the IPCC started putting up or shutting up about their theories, their business opportunities and exactly how they can help big business squeeze even more tax out of those of us who actually work for a living rather than receiving state "research funding" to build second houses.
Okay rant over
Mine's the one with the keys for the 6 litre gas guzzler.......
Pots and Kettles
No conflict of interest for The Register then, seeing as it is rewarded with ad revenue for its trollish anti global warming stories?
It may be appropriate to point out that accepting the reality of excess global warming does not mean automatic acceptance that there are no problems or side-effects with any of proposed solutions, including carbon trading. Of course, the alternative of carbon offsetting, mentioned in the article, also has some serious problems (e.g. with serious questions about whether claimed savings in current offset schemes stand up to scrutiny, and the problem of profiteering and lack of rights for indigenous people in the latest forest-preservation offset proposals). Unfortunately these complex issues require thought and proper analysis, qualities that The Register seems to have offset or traded away when it comes to its coverage of climate change.
conflict of interests
So how many environmental campaign groups did The Register talk to before pressing the submit button? One or was that none? If you are right, they should be queuing up to spread the dirt. DEFRA was spot on, there is no story. Jeremy Leggett set up Solar Century because he could see the writing on the wall 15 years before anyone else. And it seems that The Register cannot even see the wall let alone the writing. For goodness sake, get out of the office and go and listen to Jeremy Leggett and Oliver Tickell, who regularly speak in London, and write your stories with an open mind. Climate Change is not The Register's main theme and it shouldn't have to use it as crutch to maintain readership.
I disagree with your premise
This is a most absurd join-the-dots exercise, even by the standards of an undergraduate blowhard who should never have been let loose beyond the confines of his anti-science blog dungeon.
Here are the facts the author is anxious about:
- Some people are concerned about climate change, because they’ve read the science.
- A subset of these people campaign to reduce the carbon emissions which science shows affect the climate.
- Another subset of the original group founds or works for companies who develop carbon-reducing technologies, not least because business gets things done, for good or ill.
- Some people are in the Venn diagram intersection of the two subsets.
OMG!!1! Shock horror, people who actually understand both the science and the politics of this issue both campaign on the climate and work directly to cut emissions.
I’ve got another way of describing these people: personal heroes of mine.
@Paul M. the gullible and ignorant
I'd double check your numbers Paul (that's if you even bothered to check them in the first place), rather than repeating what your mates say in the pub or what you read in the right-winged 'hate for any other view' websites. Although the plethora of aforementioned websites will have you believe a large proportion of credible scientist are sceptical, in fact the number is tiny. Isn't that the usual tactic of the unholy alliance of industrialists that see the Earth as theirs to exploit and hate any protection of the environment and the religious who think God controls everything including the climate?! Weird how they've now made out anyone at odds with their worldview are part of some brainwashed 'religion' !! Wake up.
Considering the way scientific consensus works (something you obviously have no party to) it'd be very difficult to kick out scientists that disagree with the majority; dissenting voices are an integral part of the way scientific agreement is made, and theories strengthened.
"If you're a "climate scientist" and you dissent from the AGW mainstream and the AGW payola will go to someone else."
And how much payola is there each year from the likes of Exxon to rubbish AGW AGAINST ALL AVAILABLE SCIENCE!? Exxon makes $1billion a day, more than the entire climate science funding budget each year. I'm surprised you didn't say so (as people as brainwashed as you usually do!) but follow the money!
Weird how you think that quoting a few individuals, whose credential are usually exaggerated or fabricated, and whose agendas are unknown, makes your argument complete. Let me quote you a few quotes:-
"Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact." The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."
And here's one that explains the people you quote:
"In 1998, John H. Cushman of the New York Times reported on a memorandum written by a public relations specialist for the American Petroleum Institute. The leaked memo described a plan "to recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases. A proposed media-relations budget of US $600,000, not counting any money for advertising, [which] would be directed at science writers, editors, columnists and television network correspondents, using as many as 20 'respected climate scientists' recruited expressly 'to inject credible science and scientific accountability into the global climate debate, thereby raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom."
Sounds just like the individuals you quoted!!
You haven't mentioned junk science yet. I'll tell you where it came from:
"There are clear similarities between the language used and the approaches adopted by Philip Morris and by the organisations funded by Exxon. The two lobbies use the same terms, which appear to have been invented by Philip Morris's consultants. 'Junk science' meant peer-reviewed studies showing that smoking was linked to cancer and other diseases. 'Sound science' meant studies sponsored by the tobacco industry suggesting that the link was inconclusive."
How about the views of a few respected societies. The consensus of hundreds of member scientists, not just individuals that may be bought:
"The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated, “Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.”
"The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling."
"In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”
I could go on all night. I doubt any of it would sway your 'religion'. Without CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth would be too cold to support life. Burn fossil fuels, and you release more CO2, a greenhouse gas, and temperatures rise. CO2 has been steadily increasing in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution, and consequentially temperatures rising. Not difficult to work out what's going on, so long as you have an open mind that is!
AC -- "Just tick the box to say you have a college degree (and if you don't lie), then all of a sudden you're a 'climate scientist' !!!!"
You mean like every supposed 'climate scientist' I see on TV chatting AGW-is-true-i-tells-ya bollocks to earn themselves a few quid...
@Rob the gullible
"how much payola is there each year from the likes of Exxon to rubbish AGW AGAINST ALL AVAILABLE SCIENCE!?"
Gosh, you're excited. CAPITAL letters and Exclamation?!? marks too.
Well, Rob - you need to compare Exxon's payola against the aggregate of state, foundation and NGO payola devoted to propping up the unproven hypothesis of AGW.
These calculations have already been done:
Exxon has spent $150m in 10 years trying to attack the AGW thesis. Greenpeace alone spends over $200m, most of which is on "climate change". The annual budget of the UK Carbon Trust is $400m.
Now factor in NASA, the UN's IPCC, Gore's $300m payola fund, and all the other agencies that know they can get funding from repeating the AGW hypothesis.
The funding from the UN, state governments, and Greenpeace exceeds Exxon's budget by 20x - 200x. It's party time!
This is how you win an argument - you buy up all the airtime, all the scientists, and the public opinion will follow.
"I could go on all night."
I bet you could.
It was warmer 1000 years ago than it is now
It was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today, then the mini Ice Age, then it got warmer,
the warmest year of the 1900's was 1934, the 1970's were cold, then it warmed til 1998,
now it's cooling again, the Ice is expanding in the Arctic, this man made global warming
scam is going to make it very expensive to keep warm, how cold does it have to get
before people will notice that Al Gore the King of man made global warming isn't
wearing any clothes.
It's all bollocks
It's just another myth that we're fed and told to believe. The current agenda is causing little children to think that it's true, and lecture us based on some shit they saw on Blue Peter.
I'm glad that there are at least some scientific minds that don't subscribe to this shit. It won't have any effect on the way things are going though; the UK gov't method of making money through tax and stealth tax has still left a blackhole in the treasury... without more bullshit taxation, they'll never plug that gap and has there ever been such a worthy vehical for bullshit tax than Climate Change?
Does it matter?
Really? Worst case scenario we heat the planet up to the point where human life can no longer survive - we go extinct and species that thrive in a warmer climate will once again be in ascension. 60 million years ago (give or take) the world was too warm for ice to form and dominated by big lizards and proto-birds... it might be again.
It won't matter in 4 billion years anyway when the whole planet has disappeared into the sun. It's just one insignificant rock on one arm of a spiral galaxy floating amongst a multitude of other galaxies.
The stupidity we're dealing with!
"now it's cooling again, the Ice is expanding in the Arctic, this man made global warming"
The eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. FACT. Only retards, or the completely ignorant could believe the Earth is now cooling.
Arctic ice is expanding!? LOL. Not even Paul M could say something that stupid.
What we're dealing with here is stupidity borne out of ignorance and lack of education.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies