Friday, October 14, 2011 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Tony Abbott: buyers of carbon credits are throwing money out of the window

Coffee, chocolate destroyed by AGW

The lower chamber of the Australian Parliament approved the AUD $22.90 per ton of CO2 carbon tax. Given the current distribution of forces, the looming approval in the Senate seems to be a formality.

Julia Gillard celebrates the "Yes" vote with Kevin Rudd. The following bedroom celebrations with Bob Brown are not shown on the picture.

Tony Abbott told the Australian businesses that they shouldn't buy any carbon indulgences because his party will rescind this Ponzi scheme on Day 1. Not too shockingly, champions of the fee called Abbott's proclamation "irresponsible".

I think that it's good that politicians are already working on future rules of business that will apply once Julia Gillard et al. is sent away from the system and her fraudulent policies are abolished. The message is that whoever actively bets on the success of this Ponzi scheme will lose his money.

Meanwhile, Al Gore has unsurprisingly endorsed the mobs occupying the Wall Street and other places on the globe.

A few days ago, the Union of Concerning Scientists (mostly puppies) has also determined that global warming will destroy coffee. It will also caused shortage of chocolate.

The reason is that coffee and chocolate are milked out of violet cows (see one of them on the picture above) which are offspring of multicultural families including brown cows and polar bears. The polar bears, the fathers of the Milka cows, will drown because they will be unable to distinguish ice from water.

When I was a schoolkid, our teachers would tell us that coffee was mostly grown near the equator where the climate is warm, e.g. at these places of Africa:

But it may have been just some communist propaganda and cold weather is the most important thing that coffee and chocolate depend upon. ;-)

A top Czech rock band, Kabát [Furcoat], "Kdoví jestli" ["Who Knows Whether"], a fun semi-intellectual song discussing various possible conspiracy theories and misconceptions. There's a lot of former social-democratic PM Joe Quimby Paroubek and Czechia's most popular (innocent?) killer Mr Jiří Kájínek (who was repeatedly able to escape from the prison) in the amateur-added pictures, aside from violet elephants, violet tanks etc.

The Little Ice Age was apparently caused by Man, namely by Christopher Columbus. He indirectly planted dozens trees in Europe which cooled the planet by several degrees, not to speak about his role in the pale faces' violent crippling of the Native Americans' mass production of Ford and Chevrolet cars.

Add to Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (3) :

reader earth that was said...

Lubos, here is an idea I have been mulling over for some time. It would be interesting to get your reaction to it. The Columbian charcoal case is a good vehicle for laying it out.

If (say, for purpose of argument)the decline of the pre-Columbian population of the Americas was sufficient to induce a "little ice age" ...why didn't this trigger other tipping points and flip us into a new ice age - i.e. the big one?

Please feel free to substitute whatever "new climate forcing of the month" you want for the case of the post-Columbian charcoal decline.

We are constantly told there is a veritable minefield of unknown tipping points hiding like booby traps in the jungle out in front of us. One false carbon footprint step and "kapowee!" - we've had it.

But there seems to be this ever expanding list of prospective 'scientifically endorsed' climate change vectors... new 'forcing' culprits. The list just grows and grows. Most raise their head in one or two papers and then disappear without a trace once the grant runs out.

But if the list is true, ..or even a 10th of it..., the "new forcings" findings cannot be significant to the current time only. Instances of this type must pepper the historical record. Yet why aren't these big bad tipping points tipping?

The implication, or so it would seem to me, is that the negative feedback effects of the climate system are overwhelming and predominant and are able to correct and absorb significant shocks like the one proposed in the wake of Columbus.

The alternative hypothesis is that stable climate is really a statistical illusion, something like a gamblers' fallacy. Any apparent stability in the past was just good luck, just like a gambler have three sixs in a row. Expecting a six to come up a fourth time is a fallacy.

If the "gamblers fallacy in a climatic casino" hypothesis is correct we have bigger things to worry about than carbon levels and virtually nothing we can do can influence the next turn of the game anyway. If the casino hypothesis is incorrect, we have a climate system dominated by negative feedback effects.

reader sillyfingers said...

Oddly enough, Tony Abbot's comments could have the opposite effect. People might rationally buy the permits - which have been given the status of 'property' - in the belief that the Liberal Party are very likely to win, and the permit-holders could make a profit in the courts when the new gov't has to legislate away their 'rights'.

reader Luboš Motl said...

Dear sillyfingers,

I am no lawyer but common sense rules that your "strategy" is silly.

Those who buy "carbon credits" still possess only carbon credits, i.e. the "right to emit CO2". Because everyone has the right to emit CO2 even without "credits", and this fact will be made official and explicit during the next right-wing government again, the credits will be worthless again. Their price will be 0 dollars.

But no one will actually steal their credits! They have only made a risky investment so the value of what they bought becomes zero. I don't know how courts could possibly "resuscitate" the value of someone's risky investment because no one is going to steal anything here.