As with many complex issues, there's much more to this than "More CO2: BAD; less CO2: GOOD!" Read on.
Copenhagen Climate Concerns: Additional Considerations
Posted using ShareThis
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What happens if the U.S. signs the treaty to in Copenhagen to regulate CO2?
This is a great read.
What happens if the U.S. signs the treaty to in Copenhagen to regulate CO2?
Posted using ShareThis
What happens if the U.S. signs the treaty to in Copenhagen to regulate CO2?
Posted using ShareThis
U.S. News Spotlights SpeakOutforAmerica.com
Just as good scientists continually challenge an idea until it's proven or disproven, we skeptics need to keep challenging this tenuous theory. READ ON!
U.S. News Spotlights SpeakOutforAmerica.com
Posted using ShareThis
U.S. News Spotlights SpeakOutforAmerica.com
Posted using ShareThis
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
George Will On Point Again!
Excellent column by George Will about the hyperbole attendant to the climate change conference in Copenhagen. This appeared Sunday in the Washington Post; free registration may be required to access the column.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Copenhagen...or bust?
President Obama's trip to Copenhagen -- which blithely ignores the evidence of data manipulation uncovered by scientists "researching" climate change -- lends an undeserved credibility to the issue and those sponsoring it.
Yes, I used the word "sponsoring" deliberately. More than ever, it is now crystal clear that scientists supposedly doing scientific research -- which is, by its nature, skeptical -- had a greater interest in silencing those colleagues who expressed a healthy and proper scientific skepticism than they had in learning the truth. Why? There was money to be had; for scientists in the form of research grants and for politicians in cap-and-trade dollars.
While watching the news at the gym this morning, I saw a poll on one news station stating that "55% of Americans know nothing about cap-and-trade." On another, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) was talking about U.S. industry spending "TRILLIONS of dollars on cap-and-trade" for something that may have little, if any effect. Yes, TRILLIONS.
To do what?
Earlier this year, I attended a meeting at which a power company executive told the group that cap-and-trade would not remove one ton of carbon from the air; it would just move money from one group of people to another -- likely, the Federal government.
How does it work?
While it's not settled yet, generally it could work one of two ways: either the federal government gives away carbon allowances or it sells them. But know this: earlier this year, the Obama administration estimated that federal coffers would gain about $80 billion a year from carbon allowances.
Here's an illustration. Please understand the numbers are just for the purpose of illustration.
Let's say one "carbon credit" allows a company to emit one ton of CO2. If it gets 1,000 carbon credits and only needs 990, it can sell the other 10. If it paid for the original credits, it's a way of recouping some of its costs. If the credits were "granted" (given) to the company, then selling them means profit.
How much value they have is a function of how great the fine will be for exceeding one's carbon allowance. If there's a fine of $1 million per excess ton of CO2 emitted, paying anything less than that for a carbon credit would be money saved. Of course, there's a risk/benefit analysis the company will have to make ("Should we spend $750,000 for a carbon credit or risk that our extra ton of CO2 won't be detected?") but generally that's the way it will work.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Whether you're talking about research scientists competing for research grants or government agencies looking for new revenue streams, it's clear that the "global warming industry" is clearly that: an industry looking for money to keep itself operating. If the truth has to be sacrificed in the process, apparently that's the price they're willing to pay.
The rest of us should not stand for it.
Yes, I used the word "sponsoring" deliberately. More than ever, it is now crystal clear that scientists supposedly doing scientific research -- which is, by its nature, skeptical -- had a greater interest in silencing those colleagues who expressed a healthy and proper scientific skepticism than they had in learning the truth. Why? There was money to be had; for scientists in the form of research grants and for politicians in cap-and-trade dollars.
While watching the news at the gym this morning, I saw a poll on one news station stating that "55% of Americans know nothing about cap-and-trade." On another, Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) was talking about U.S. industry spending "TRILLIONS of dollars on cap-and-trade" for something that may have little, if any effect. Yes, TRILLIONS.
To do what?
Earlier this year, I attended a meeting at which a power company executive told the group that cap-and-trade would not remove one ton of carbon from the air; it would just move money from one group of people to another -- likely, the Federal government.
How does it work?
While it's not settled yet, generally it could work one of two ways: either the federal government gives away carbon allowances or it sells them. But know this: earlier this year, the Obama administration estimated that federal coffers would gain about $80 billion a year from carbon allowances.
Here's an illustration. Please understand the numbers are just for the purpose of illustration.
Let's say one "carbon credit" allows a company to emit one ton of CO2. If it gets 1,000 carbon credits and only needs 990, it can sell the other 10. If it paid for the original credits, it's a way of recouping some of its costs. If the credits were "granted" (given) to the company, then selling them means profit.
How much value they have is a function of how great the fine will be for exceeding one's carbon allowance. If there's a fine of $1 million per excess ton of CO2 emitted, paying anything less than that for a carbon credit would be money saved. Of course, there's a risk/benefit analysis the company will have to make ("Should we spend $750,000 for a carbon credit or risk that our extra ton of CO2 won't be detected?") but generally that's the way it will work.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Whether you're talking about research scientists competing for research grants or government agencies looking for new revenue streams, it's clear that the "global warming industry" is clearly that: an industry looking for money to keep itself operating. If the truth has to be sacrificed in the process, apparently that's the price they're willing to pay.
The rest of us should not stand for it.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Talk About "Inconvenient Truths"...
A must-read column by Jonah Goldberg about the discovery of malfeasance at the Climatic Research Unit regarding manipulated data, cover-ups of facts that didn't support the desired outcome, and the complicity of the mainstream news media in not covering these startling developments.
Friday, November 27, 2009
FLASH BULLETIN: Global Warming Hoax BUSTED!
More information gleaned from the e-mails purloined from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Hadley, U.K (or "Hadley" as it's often called) cast significant doubt on the science used to justify the theory of global warming. These are things you won't see in the American press, which has completely rolled over on this issue and utterly abandoned its role as skeptic and questioner of the party line. ("Walter Cronkite, we miss you!")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
