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.

2 comments:

  1. 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.

    But the MPs said they had “reservations” about both inquiries.

    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.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Last night, the BBC broadcast a TV programme by the President of the Royal Society, Sir Nurse, who claimed there is an unprecedented rate of global warming now.

    I just sent the following complaint to the BBC:

    Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse, falsely states that the RATE of climate change is "unprecedented"


    Royal Society President, Sir Paul Nurse, who won a Nobel Prize for identifying a key human gene (CDK1) in the cyclin family of proteins which regulate the DNA synthesis (and other stages required cell mitosis/division) during the lifespan of a normal cell, in the first 50 minutes or so of the programme ignore all the important criticisms of groupthink propaganda masquerading as science, and instead digs up selective "straw man" criticisms to knock down in the pretense of demolishing all arguments. The major one is the false statement he makes that the RATE of change of climate is unprecedented: actually nobody has ever disputed the fact that faster RATES of climate change and consequences have occurred in the past. The temperature on this planet is never constant! It is always either increasing or decreasing, so there is a 50% chance at any random time in history that the temperature will be rising, and a 50% chance that it will be falling!!! It’s always one or the other. Moreover, the temperature has been almost continuously rising for 18,000 years when the last ice age started to thaw, so for this period the expectancy of warming is higher than 50%. Over the past 18,000 years global warming has caused the sea levels to rise 120 metres, a mean rise of 0.67 cm/year, with even higher rates of rise during part of this time. In the century of 1910-2010, sea levels have risen linearly by a total of 20 cm or a mean rate of rise of 0.20 cm/year. Nobody disputes the fact that we're now living through a period of relatively SLOW climate change compared to the epoch of the past 18,000 years when humans adapted and indeed flourished under conditions of climate change. He also avoids the small CO_2 footprint of nuclear power. ...

    He should not have been permitted to transmit such factually incorrect statements unchallenged. Then he interviews an ignorant science journalist and tells him that the public must believe the consensus of expert opinion on cancer diagnoses. I've known many close relatives who have received incorrect diagnoses, and I've had incorrect diagnoses myself. Consensus is the worst part of medicine, the least scientific and most political edge. It's very dangerous. You should go to a doctor for a consultation and for advice and explanation, and be free to do your own research. It's your life. This man is in this sense a pseudoscientific danger, like his fellow Nobel laureate the surgeon Alexis Carrel who in 1935 wrote “Man, the Unknown”, which advocated the pseudoscientific use of eugenics to create a “super-race”, which the Nazis used to bolster the "scientific" image of racial prejudice! This is relevant since it is the danger of popularizing ignorance!

    ReplyDelete