Australian Politics Forum

I am just wondering why? Why would there be a "conspiracy" to convince ppl theres climate change if there isnt? I can see why ppl dont want it to be true but why would anyone want it to be true?

Disclaimer:

This thread isnt about whether its true or not just the reasoning

Spot

The reason given is that there is a massive global conspiracy involving NASA, The BOM, The Met among other scientific organisations and it is apparently due to wanting to increase government research grants.

It sure is lucky that internet bloggers, conservative political commentators and resource billionaires are holding them to account. ;)

Quote:

“International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket.

We’re going to help them get their share." Julia Gillard

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/speech-business-council-australia-dinner

World Bank

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016-04/08/content_24371651.htm

Bank of America

[urlhttp://about.bankofamerica.com/en-us/global-impact/environmental-sustainability.html#fbid=DwZcfXoVYeL[/url]

European Investment Bank

http://www.eib.org/infocentre/press/releases/all/2015/2015-204-european-investment-bank-agrees-eur-17-billion-of-new-loans-and-approves-new-climate-lending-strategy.htm

Australian Banks

http://www.accr.org.au/big_banks

Five Multilateral development banks pledge $170 billion over next five years
Ahead of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP21, five multilateral development banks (MDBs) have pledged to increase climate financing to US$170 billion over the next five years.[/b]

http://www.pv-magazine.com/archive/articles/beitrag/5-mdbs-pledge-170-billion-in-climate-financing_100021515/#ixzz4AZ1TDMXd

Blythe Masters wrote the laws on Credit Default Swaps which were responsible for the 2008 GFC.

She is also writing the laws on Carbon Derivatives.

Quote:

Copenhagen’s Hidden Agenda: The Multibillion Trade in Carbon Derivatives

Architect of Credit Default Swaps behind the Development of "Carbon Derivatives"

As I have previously shown, speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis.

And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won’t work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.

Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity — in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases…

Who is Blythe Masters?

She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM’s carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):

Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities…

As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.

Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap.

Some in congress are fighting against carbon derivatives:

“People are going to be cutting up carbon futures, and we’ll be in trouble,” says Maria Cantwell, a Democratic senator from Washington state. “You can’t stay ahead of the next tool they’re going to create.”

Cantwell, 51, proposed in November that U.S. state governments be given the right to ban unregulated financial products. “The derivatives market has done so much damage to our economy and is nothing more than a very-high-stakes casino — except that casinos have to abide by regulations,” she wrote in a press release…

However, Congress may cave in to industry pressure to let carbon derivatives trade over-the-counter:

The House cap-and-trade bill bans OTC derivatives, requiring that all carbon trading be done on exchanges…The bankers say such a ban would be a mistake…The banks and companies may get their way on carbon derivatives in separate legislation now being worked out in Congress…

Financial experts are also opposed to cap and trade:

Even George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund operator, says money managers would find ways to manipulate cap-and-trade markets. “The system can be gamed,” Soros, 79, remarked at a London School of Economics seminar in July. “That’s why financial types like me like it — because there are financial opportunities”…

Hedge fund manager Michael Masters, founder of Masters Capital Management LLC, based in St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands [and unrelated to Blythe Masters] says speculators will end up controlling U.S. carbon prices, and their participation could trigger the same type of boom-and-bust cycles that have buffeted other commodities…

The hedge fund manager says that banks will attempt to inflate the carbon market by recruiting investors from hedge funds and pension funds.

“Wall Street is going to sell it as an investment product to people that have nothing to do with carbon,” he says. “Then suddenly investment managers are dominating the asset class, and nothing is related to actual supply and demand. We have seen this movie before.”

Indeed, as I have previously pointed out, many environmentalists are opposed to cap and trade as well. For example:

Michelle Chan, a senior policy analyst in San Francisco for Friends of the Earth, isn’t convinced.

“Should we really create a new $2 trillion market when we haven’t yet finished the job of revamping and testing new financial regulation?” she asks. Chan says that, given their recent history, the banks’ ability to turn climate change into a new commodities market should be curbed…

“What we have just been woken up to in the credit crisis — to a jarring and shocking degree — is what happens in the real world,” she says…

Friends of the Earth’s Chan is working hard to prevent the banks from adding carbon to their repertoire. She titled a March FOE report “Subprime Carbon?” In testimony on Capitol Hill, she warned, “Wall Street won’t just be brokering in plain carbon derivatives — they’ll get creative.”

Yes, they’ll get “creative”, and we have seen this movie before …an inadequately-regulated carbon derivatives boom will destabilize the economy and lead to another crash.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-s-hidden-agenda-the-multibillion-trade-in-carbon-derivatives/16449

The World Bank is immersed in Climate change....!!!!

Wonder why boys and girls....???????

BTW the world bank owns the United nations which in turn own the IPCC.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:24pm:

The sky is falling, the sea will swallow us up...help...... :D

The only panacea is to pay the George Soros and the Rothschild's of this world for the air we breathe through the stock exchange.

Every nation must pay these f@rkers billions of dollars through the stock exchange.

This is our salvation.

Don't forget to buy,

David de Rothschild 'Global Warming Survival Handbook'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSI-L6uGa8M

Is that the Arctic that was supposed to have melted by ~~2008~~, ~~2013~~, ~~2016~~, ~~2018~~? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Burning fossil fuels and deforestation by humans has caused the CO₂ atmospheric concentration to increase from about 300 ppm pre-industrial revolution to over 400 ppm post-industrial revolution.

Increased by around 33% at about 71 times faster than pre-industrial times.

Meanwhile ... the Greenland Ice Sheets and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are losing mass at an alarming rate. The Arctic Ice extent is getting smaller and smaller as the global temperature rises. Sea levels are rising and low lying populations will eventually be inundated during storm tides.

Those people are going to have to find new places to live.

Fun isn't it? :o

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

September 1957 - arctic decreases by 40%

May 1947 - arctic melting
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/22429983?searchTerm=climate%20change&searchLimits=

November 1922 - arctic melting
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

And it's still melting ...

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:48pm:

And it's still melting ...

A natural cycle perhaps as the Earth cools and warms.. ;)

Your "natural cycle" has not seen CO₂ much over 300 ppm over the last 800,000 years at least.

Then, surprise surprise ... after the industrial revolution, it suddenly jumps from about 300 ppm to over 400 ppm.

What a co-incidence eh? ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:59pm:

Yes you're quite right, steady CO2 yet we have had all these cycles of warm and cold spells.

What does that tell you about CO2 and temperature...?

CO₂ has the physical property of retaining heat. It's a matter of chemistry and physics.

Methane is even worse.

Burning fossil fuels and reducing vegetation creates a large volume of CO₂

You will see that over time, with the increase in CO₂ in the air, temperatures will rise above "normal". This will have impacts on the climate.

Have you Googled about this at all? ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Burning fossil fuels and deforestation by humans has caused the CO2 atmospheric concentration to increase from about 300 ppm pre-industrial revolution to over 400 ppm post-industrial revolution.

Increased by around 33% at about 71 times faster than pre-industrial times.

No influence by natural processes at all? ;D ;D ;D

"Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought"

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/

Wildfires didn't exist before current era? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Meanwhile ... the Greenland Ice Sheets and the Antarctic Ice Sheets are losing mass at an alarming rate.

Of course I showed that the Antarctic is increasing according to one study. But that you want to ignore. Greenland Ice Mass is stable.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Sea levels are rising and low lying populations will eventually be inundated during storm tides.

Which ones exactly? Did you know about the Cinque Ports?

"The coast of Kent, in southeast England, is the home of the 'Cinque Ports', a famous group of port towns. However, almost all of these historic ports are now well inland.

These ports have a well-documented history, including their gradual retreat from the sea. One of them, Romney, was a prosperous port in 791 AD [8]. As the sea retreated and it became no longer usable as a port, it was replaced by New Romney. In turn, New Romney gradually lost its sea access, and is now about 2 kilometres from the sea."

http://aoi.com.au/bcw/Sealevel/
So sea level dropped and it now is increasing. I guess it was the stable CO2 that caused it all. ;)

Mediterranean towns now under water.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 12:42pm:

Those people are going to have to find new places to live.

People have moved before because of oceans rising, falling. You want sea level to be stable? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No it isn't FUN. It is however a reality.

"Greenland Ice Mass is stable."

Err ... I think not.

Greenland ever wondered why it was named so.... ;)

Medieval warm period warmer than today.

Dahl_Jensen et al 1998
Wagner & Melles 2001
Kaplan et al 2002
Jiang et al 2002
Moore et al 2001
Grudd et al 2002
Seppa & Birks 2002
Dansgaard et al 1975
Korhola et al 2000
Naurzbaev et al 2002
Vaganov et el 1996
Briffa et al 1998
Scweingruber & Briffa 1996
Knudsen et al 2004
Grinsted et al 2006
Besonen et al 2008
Wagner et al 2008
Vare et al 2009
Norgaard-Pedersen & Mikkelsen 2009
Andresen et al 2004
Vinther et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2010
Kobashi et al 2008
Stuiver et al 1995
Dansgaard et al 1975
Jenings & Weiner 1996
Johnsen et al 2001
Vinther et al 2010
Larsen et al 2011
Hill et al 2001
Joynt & Wolfe 2001
Hantemirov & Shiyatov 2002
Andersson et al 2003
Helama et al 2005
Mazepa 2005
Weckstrom et al 2006
Jiang et al 2007
Zabenski & Gajewski 2007
Grudd 2008
Justwan et al 2008
Scire et al 2008
Axford et al 2009
Bjune et al 2009
Cook et al 2009
Fortin & Gajewski 2010
Buntgen et al 2011
Divine et al 2011
Ran et al 2011
Velle et al 2011
D’Andrea et al 2012
Esper et al 2012

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 1:20pm:

"Greenland Ice Mass is stable."

Err ... I think not.

You should have parsed it differently - "I think, NOT". ;D ;D ;D

Oh dear using the GRACE data again; after I posted about the problems with GRACE data.

Follow the blue line and compare it to the black line. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You do realise that the blue line is lower than the previous lines above it don't you?

You don't?

Blimey! :o

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 1:56pm:

You do realise that the blue line is lower than the previous lines above it don't you?

As I said it is stable. Within statistical certainty.

But then is is completely different to the GRACE data.

Perhaps you like this one better -

August marks the end of the melt season. ;)

Not stable ... but losing mass at about 280 Gigatonnes per year. ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 3:12pm:

Not stable ... but losing mass at about 280 Gigatonnes per year.

"Greenland on average loses around 500 Gt of ice each year from calving and submarine melt processes. If we subtract this from our figure of 544 Gt for the SMB it would suggest Greenland gained a small amount of ice this year"

http://polarportal.dk/en/news/news/end-of-the-smb-season-summary-2017/

"However, it is likely that the relatively high end of season SMB will mean a zero or close-to-zero total mass budget this year, as last year."

http://sciencenordic.com/how-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-2018

That's not what the DMI and Science Nordic say. ;)

You need to look at the trend over a longer period which indicates that the Ice sheets are losing mass.

CO₂ going up, temperature going up, ice mass going down, sea level going up.

Not rocket science.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 4:12pm:

You need to look at the trend over a longer period which indicates that the Ice sheets are losing mass.

A trend line is simply drawn between two points of data. The trend of the last 2 years is up. ;)

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 4:12pm:

CO2 going up, temperature going up, ice mass going down, sea level going up.

So correlation is causation? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 4:12pm:

Not rocket science.

Even basic science is beyond you.

Well it seems everything is about money and yeah theres opportunities but it means changing everything and eventually getting rid of coal and oil. The conspiracy still doesnt make sense.

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2018 at 5:23am:

Well it seems everything is about money and yeah theres opportunities but it means changing everything and eventually getting rid of coal and oil. The conspiracy still doesnt make sense.

Spot

RCP 8.5 doesn't foresee that possibility. That's one reason why it is flawed

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Global Warming Conspiracy http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1543699254 Message started by Sir Spot of Borg on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 7:20am