Don't agree with Hansen much....  but hey...  he can't be wrong about everything.

And I have no love for Tony Abbott, but....  Go Tony Go!!!!!!!!!!!!

December 4, 2009
World's Leading Scientist Fighting Against Global Warming is Opposed to Cap And Trade

James Hansen is the world's leading climate scientist fighting against global warming.

Yesterday, Dr. Hansen told the Guardian:

    He is vehemently opposed to the carbon market schemes – in which permits to pollute are bought and sold – which are seen by the EU and other governments as the most efficient way to cut emissions and move to a new clean energy economy.

Therefore, Hansen says:

    It would be better for the planet and for future generations if next week's Copenhagen climate change summit ended in collapse.

Hansen has previously said that cap and trade "will not work", and he has previously called cap and trade "a Ponzi-like ... scheme".

I have repeatedly pointed out that cap and trade won't work. Indeed:

    * The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won't work for global warming

    * Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won't effectively reduce carbon emissions

    * European criminal investigators have determined that there is a tremendous amount of fraud occurring in the carbon trading market.

    * Former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Robert Shapiro says that the proposed cap and trade law "has no provisions to prevent insider trading by utilities and energy companies or a financial meltdown from speculators trading frantically in the permits and their derivatives."

    * Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this). As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

         Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

     In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.

And it won't work.

Merry Xmas Malcolm and the ALP alarmists

Hansen sure knows a lot about climatology, but he doesn't know squat about market failure. I doubt that either Hansen or Grandel (Ha, sounds like Hansel & Gretel) could offer a satisfactory explanation of how cap and trade is in any way like a Ponzi scheme. But please give it a shot, Gretel. Amuse us.

Paella wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 10:33pm:


Good to see you here paella.Everyone is comming out of the woodwork the last couple of days.

Quote:


MOZZ MOZZ MOZZ...  YOU DO KNOW WHOM HANSEN IS DON'T YOU?
ONE SHOULD KNOW THE MAN ONE WORSHIPS AS A GOD. 

lol

Coming from the site TROLL I suppose that's high praise.

As I said yesterday Boofhead...  I just drooped in to say Merry Xmas and dump a few topics for discussion.

I aint staying and you and your constant trolling and sniping are the main reason for that.
Hope that makes you feel good. 

Keep the lies coming dkhd

Paella wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 10:33pm:


Well since the forum puppy won't do it I guess we'll have to wait until James Hansen starts posting here.

Rudd and all the other brains behind this wheeze have been saying things like this for a longish while:

"In an interview with the Herald yesterday, Mr Rudd listed the offers from China, India, the US and Europe to cut carbon emissions. The efforts so far were insufficient to meet the ."


I am amazed that he and all the others like him have the sheer chutzpah to say something like this out loud when there are other people ithin earshot. And all of you who are still nodding when you hear this sort of lunacy should check the batteries in your bvllsh!t detectors because they are obviously not working.

Not only are we changing the climate - we can control the climate! All it takes is knowing how much to turn this little knob down here, marked "CO2". Eeeeasy now... Voila! temperature change is capped at max 2 degrees.

Well, boys and girls, next we learn how to play the flute! You blow in one end and move your fingers up and down the holes - and that's it!! That wasn't too hard now, was it, boys and girl?!?

I've got a lot to learn about ETS, Carbon Tax and other options but I would consider Dubai more of a ponzi scheme than this.

OK, when the market crashes time and time again, as it will continue to do as crops fail, and the price of carbon goes through the floor again, how does an ETS scheme actually enable us to reach our objective of transferring to renewable technology and decarbonising the economy? How can an Emissions Trading Scheme survive under a violently fluctuating market environment?

Just remind me of that.

I agree with Hansen on this. I don't recall having taken any other position.

Ultimately, we're going to have to chuck a lot of money at this problem far too late, and probably go broke as a result.

Actually we do still want carbon emissions. Just fewer of them. If we didn't want it it would be simple - ban it.

muso wrote on Dec 18^th, 2009 at 8:30am:


Thats just it. We can't get rid of carbon emissions because we have to produce them in order to have a industry to cater for the needs of the Australian population. And as you said, population needs to be regulated. Australia is too over populated. We have too many people. Our population has grown by over 4 million in the last 11 years. The massive population growth and the drought has put strains on our national water supplies and on our natural resources. We now have a housing crisis because of the rapid growth in the national population growth. Up to one thousand people a week at moving to Queensland. It is predicted in the next couple of generations that the population of south east Queensland will explode. The state governments are struggling to deal with the massive rise in population. In spite of all these things, the Federal Government is insisting on importing up to five hundred thousand foreigners a year into Australia. There are people in the Labor Party who are calling for an end to all immigration restrictions or a relaxation of restrictions. The Labor Party can not be trusted with immigration or the running of the Australia economy. The national population must be decreased to 1998 levels in order to better deal with the water shortages and with the strains on our infrastructure. It would also help with carbon emission reductions. If we are serious about saving and preserving the environment of our country, then we should reduce our population. Also, a population reduction would also reduce pressure on the housing market that would result in a massive decrease in the cost of housing.

The Federal Government can achieve population reduction in a number of ways. First, the government could reintroduce the Immigration Restriction Act that would seriously limit the number of foreigners who come to Australia. Secondly, the government the should withdraw from the 1955 convention on the accepting of refugees. There are other things that the government can do but I won't look into them.

In general, the world is very over population. There are over six billion people in the world. It is predicted that the population of the world will hit 10 billion by mid this century. We already have over a billion people who live in poverty and are facing mass starvation. Frankly, we should allow Darwinism to take it's course and let the billion people, who are virtually all Asians or Africans, die. Mankind should be reduced by two or three billion. Virtually the population reductions should take place in poor countries in Africa and Asia. They can't support most of their people so they should investigate some kind of large wide spread culling of their populations.

Soren wrote on Dec 17^th, 2009 at 5:55pm:


The speculators market would have to run in parallel then.
Even if the carbon price falls through the floor as part of the bust in a boom and bust cycle there will still be a limit on emissions available.  So no more can be traded anyway and someone somewhere will have to reduce their emissions.

People speculate on the stock market, there is no ultimate limit to what can be done on the stockmarket.

There is a limit in the cap and trade scheme.  The only way I see speculating occurring is as if it acted as a separate market about what the price of carbon is doing.