The EU, stung by over 7 billion dollars in fraudulent carbon credit trading transactions, is scrambling to change the taxation laws in their respective countries. Of course this does nothing for their taxpayers who were robbed. The EU carbon credit trading markets are at 140 billion dollars annually of imaginary product. It’s good news the money trail is finally getting some exposure. It’s bad news no one will shut this travesty down. Imagine the world without carbon credit trading markets and the Holy Global Warming religion. That’s a world we could all live in comfortably. Manmade Global Warming is a myth and carbon credits are imaginary. Naturally there will be criminals exploiting a market dealing in imaginary products.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/12/11/eu-carbon-credit-trading-fraud.html
In case you think the scientists are all idiotic enough to have bought into the East Anglia Scientific Method of obfuscation ‘Hide The Decline’, here are 141 real scientists in an open letter to the UN demanding they prove the Global Warming myth.
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Their qualifications can be accessed here as linked at the bottom of the above article:
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64
9 comments:
This is interesting information. I am going to hit the links and learn more thanks for sharing.
Tom Bailey
Thanks for commenting, Tom. I hope your search will show you the truth of this global money grab.
Hi Bernard. This kind of stuff drives me crazy. Do you remember when the Al Gore groupies got mad at Michael Cricton when he did his book debunking global warming as a "movement" instead of a scientific investigation? It was in the beginning of one of his books, and very well done.
I'm going to pick up a few of your books to read. If you write like you post it sounds like they will be solid reads.
I wish there'd be a clear differentiation between the concepts of global warming and global warming caused by humans. They are not the same thing. Certainly we have been in a "general" warming trend. This is part of the natural cycle of the earth and has happened many times before. But how much or how little is caused by human activity? We should not deny that humans can impact the global climate, but that impact is not likely to be simple and straightforward. Research needs to be done without all the politics involved, and the idea of "money" just damages it all.
Thanks, Rick. The books are all self published and the first two are admittedly pretty rough. I appreciate your kind words. I'm passionate about this goofy fraud because it's a threat to our way of life. You're right, Michael Crichton really did a number on them and boy did it drive them nuts.
I disagree, Charles. The money shows us why any attention is paid to a natural phenomena. If mankind had anything to do with global warming, the Middle Ages would not have been a warmer period than now and East Anglia would not have had to hide the era from their figures.
And again, we are not in a warming trend anymore. When we were in a warming trend which peaked in 1998, it was due to solar activity just as in the Middle Ages.
Bernardl, you have to read up about the ice ages and the inter-glacial periods. You can't judge a "warming" period by a ten or twenty year cycle. A human life is nothing in comparison to the age of the earth and you couldn't make an accurate judgement about temperature trends over the life of an individual. In other words, one person's personal experience of cold or warm weather is meaningless as a judge of long-term trends.
The earth has been in a general warming trend for a long time now because we are in an interglacial period. These periods have nothing to do with human presence. The only question is whether the current warming trend, which absolutely exists, is being affected by human involvement. That latter question is the one that is open to debate.
That the middle ages might or might not have been warmer than today is meaningless for the overall interglacial warming trend. We have been in that interglacial period for about 11,000 years. In fact, the whole of human civilization has occurred in that time period. There have been many such warm periods, alternating with glacial periods, over a huge time span.
The problem is that too often scientists and non-scientists are using the same terms but not meaning the same thing. For a non-scientist, a warming trend is like ten years. For a scientist it might be 20,000 or 50,000 years.
So, over the last 11,000 years or so, the "general" temperature of the earth has been going up. That certainly doesn't mean that every year or every decade or every century is warmer than the one before it, but the trend is unmistakable. Note, that this does not mean that humans are the cause of it. Again, these are two different topics and many people are confusing them.
You’ve reiterated all the points I’ve made about global warming pseudo science, Charles. It’s not me leaving out whole time era’s to make a ‘Hockey Stick’ graph where the earth temps look like we’re getting ready to burst into flame. We have had mini-warming periods and ice ages all along. The scientists have only been able to measure the exact temps for a very short period of time. The first mercury thermometer in 1714 was only used in one small place on earth. Gabriel Fahrenheit didn’t place his invention all over the world nor did he have satellite data to store. The studies of Holy Global Warming base their entire fraud on leaving out facts to establish a baseline bolstering their cash cow. They are the acolytes claiming ten, twenty, and thirty year periods of earth time (with falsified data) to be a harbinger of planetary doom.
We were in a cooling period from the 1930’s (an even hotter period than the 1990’s) until the early 1970’s when the pseudo scientists claimed we were in a coming ice age. One of them is in the thick of the Holy Global Warming religion now. Your conclusion by your own statements makes it impossible for man to be the cause of anything to do with global warming because of the short time span industrialization has taken place. That is exactly what I’ve been writing this whole time. It is the Holy Global Warming pseudo scientists claiming because of ‘trick’ data on a ‘Hockey Stick’ graph mankind is suddenly at fault. When real data and evidence are factored back into the graph no such mankind induced warming is taking place. Therefore, we are being ROBBED based on false data concocted by these cretins. And no, they are not two different subjects.
Well, we're never going to agree about them being two different subjects. 1. is the world warming. 2. are humans warming the globe. But that's OK.
A lot of the folks claiming the "new ice age" in the 70s weren't scientists either. They were media types trying to scare folks, much like with the global warming things now.
as soon as scientists publish data people without proper training begin to misinterpret them. Not that scientists are all perfect, of course. Scientists are humans too. But Gore, for example, is a classic non scientist.
'Well, we're never going to agree about them being two different subjects. 1. is the world warming. 2. are humans warming the globe. But that's OK.'
Global Warming as presented by East Anglia - the main source of baseline data for the UN and scientific community is based on false data. If we've been warming for 11,000 years in cycles of cooling and warming then Mankind had nothing to do with it. If we agree humans are not nor have they ever warmed the globe then we shouldn't be robbed because it is warming.
'A lot of the folks claiming the "new ice age" in the 70s weren't scientists either. They were media types trying to scare folks, much like with the global warming things now.'
Not true, Charles. The leaders in the movement, just as now, were scientists. They had their acolytes just like now. At the time we had enough common sense scientists and people around to stop them from turning it into a cash cow.
'as soon as scientists publish data people without proper training begin to misinterpret them. Not that scientists are all perfect, of course. Scientists are humans too. But Gore, for example, is a classic non scientist.'
In the case of Global Warming Scientists at East Anglia they weren't just human - they were crooks enabling a money scam of epic proportions as my link on the $140 billion annual EU carbon trading market illustrated. Gore, a non-scientist. Now there's an understatement. :)
Post a Comment