## Tuesday, January 25, 2011 ... //

### Guardian: Time to ban carbon trading

The Guardian, a British left-wing daily, has published a remarkable attack on the very concept of carbon trading:

The carbon market – gone in a puff of smoke?
Sabina Manea recalls my favorite analogy with the medieval indulgences and says that no real assets are backing the documents. The indulgences may disappear into thin air.

The CO2 accounts in my homeland, the Czech Republic, became the latest victim of hackers who stole 1.306 million indulgences. After they were stolen, they circulated in Poland, Italy, Estonia, Lichtenstein, and Germany.

The carbon trading has become a significant fraction of the global organized crime: just in 2010, the market grew to EUR 92 billion and became the fastest growing "commodity" market in the financial history. It's time to scrap it altogether, Ms Manea says, and it's time to put those who have been making money on it into prisons or electrical chairs, I add.

#### snail feedback (2) :

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/225108/MPs-slam-%91secretive%92-Climategate-probes/

MPS SLAM ‘SECRETIVE’ CLIMATEGATE PROBES
Tuesday January 25,2011
By John Ingham

TWO inquiries into claims that scientists manipulated data about global warming were yesterday condemned by MPs as ineffective and too secretive.

The row, which became known as Climategate, erupted in 2009 over allegations that researchers had deliberately strengthened evidence suggesting human activity was to blame for rising temperatures.

MPs on the Science and Technology Committee have now concluded that both probes into the scandal had failed to “fully investigate” claims that scientists had deleted embarrassing emails.

The investigations were set up after around 4,000 leaked emails and documents appeared to show that scientists at East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit had manipulated data to strengthen the case for man-made global warming.

UEA’s Independent Climate Change Emails Review was led by Sir Muir Russell, while the Scientific Appraisal Panel was led by Lord Oxburgh.

They criticised the brevity of the appraisal panel report, at “a mere five pages”, and said both investigations should have been more open to the public.

The committee also said the emails review “did not fully investigate the serious allegation” relating to the deletion of emails and instead relied on a verbal reassurance that the messages still exist.

Though the committee was split over the credibility of the inquiries, an amendment put forward by Labour MP Graham Stringer which said that they had not been independent was voted down by members.

He said Lord Oxburgh appeared to have a “conflict of interest” because of his links to green businesses while the Emails Review panel included a former Climate Research Unit scientist.