As the Northeast digs and melts its way out from feet of snow, now seems like a fine time to look at the lamest most shopworn work done by editorial cartoonists during the recent blizzard.
Luckily, the minimalist “If Global Warming Is Real Then Why Is It Cold?” blog has all the Al Gore and snowglobe cartoons you’ll ever need. It’s stunning to see how many folks sketched the obvious (and obviously false) crack that some heavy snow somehow disproves anthropogenic climate change. (In fact, the opposite might be true.)
No matter how you try to spin the "extra moisture in the warmer air" angle, snow in Dallas and the deep South requires unusual COLD. It may not disprove global warming but it certainly does not support it. Even the mid-Atlantic snows occurred as temps were below average; if they had been average, it would have been a lot of rain. I don't mind hearing the facts, but why does the press have to strain promote global warming hysteria.
#1 Posted by quotidian, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 10:01 AM
Glaciers melting? Global warming.
Glaciers growing? Global warming?
Floods? Global warming.
Drought? Global warming.
Hot? Global warming.
Cold? Global warming.
Hurricanes? Global warming.
No hurricanes? Global warming.
#2 Posted by padikiler, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 10:31 AM
I've been out of circulation lately and I can't promise I'll be in circulation again but STOP BEING DUMASSES.
You have the biggest El Nino in a decade which is moving hot pocket of air and cold pockets of air around. Do you remember the last El Nino? Ice storms in Quebec? Flooding and mudslides from heavy rain in the US?
Well that's happening now;
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/david_epstein/02/13/vancouver.weather/
If you don't want people act like morons and use every hurricane as a proof of global warming, you'd best not act like a moron and use every heavy snow flake as a proof of the opposite.
What the press should be doing is reporting the science, not giving credit to silly prejudices and climate catcallers.
And I assume the people who are blabbering about snowstorms and Al Gore hysteria now are going to be just as open minded when the summer heat comes and people claim the high temperatures prove global warming.
I mean, if you agree with the tactic when it's going for you, you'd be a hypocrite to argue with the tactic when it INEVITABLY goes against you.
But I would prefer people STOP acting like dumasses instead of yappity yapping themselves into a hypocritical corner.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 10:55 AM
So... AGW creates bigger Eleven Minor events that make it colder...
GOTCHA.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 12:19 PM
1998 was El Nino too, and known in some circles as the year global warming stopped. No wait, 1995 was the year it stopped? Well, these folks don't know since their basic belief is it isn't actually occurring at all but they'll say anything.
Regardless of the repeated short-term weather nonsense, one year anomalies don't a trend make.
Logical errors are, I think, of greater practical importance than many people believe; they enable their perpetrators to hold the comfortable opinion on every subject in turn.
Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 93.
#5 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 04:28 PM
Anyone who who is too stupid tot understand the difference between local weather and global climate shouldn't comment on either.
#6 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 05:41 PM
The problem here is that there is not one single AGW model that predicts a 15 year period without significant global warming.
But there it is.. The Inconvenient Truth....
And it isn't going anywhere just because the True Believers click their heels together and wish it away.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 08:34 PM
The problem is that trolls read troll newspapers who confuse the terms "warming" with "statistically significant warming". They read headlines of the troll press, not the original source, and then club people over the head with hardly understood information.
Had they read the source, they'd see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant. "
The problem here is that don't bother to understand the facts before opening their mouths.
But there it is.. The Inconvenient Truth....
And they aren't going anywhere just because the True Believers click their heels together and wish it away. They stick around, like gum on the bottom of your shoe.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 10:32 PM
Thimbles defines the new "scientific" standard from the weasel words of a Believingist conspirator: . "The positive trend is quite close to the significance level"
padikiller: Well THERE we have it!
A brand new scientific standard, straight from Thimbles!
"Nearly significant"! Or is it "not quite significant"? Or perhaps "almost significant"?
How about "just barely insignificant"?
Deal with the Reality, dude. Take the red pill.
It's dead. The horse is dead. Quit beating it. Your AGW religion is dead. Find a new way to badmouth capitalism, for Pete's sake.
#9 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 11:25 PM
First, read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
Then try to understand what the guy is saying. He's saying that the sample size is too small. It's like trying to claim a coin will always flip heads based on two coin flips indicating heads. He says there's enough data to almost meet the criteria of statistical significance, but that 15 years was too short a time frame given the chaotic nature of the data.
That doesn't mean no warming, just as the statistical significance of two coin flips doesn't mean there are no heads.
What this line of constant, obvious misrepresentation of people's words indicate is that there are no heads in the denialist movement. No thinking ones at the very least.
#10 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 12:44 AM
Thimbles drones: "First, read up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance Then try to understand what the guy is saying."
padikiller scoffs: So... You contend that the "new standard" you propose - namely that an informed, civilized, secular society should accept the "nearly significant" data or "barely insignificant" data you propose as the Gospel Truth of AGWism?
Seriously? For real? It is "significant" because the scientists say it isn't significant?
And then you run like a sissy to wikipedia, of all places, to push this nonsense?
Seriously? For real?
Dude... It's done.. The Emperor has no clothes... Phil Jones has plainly admitted that there has been no scientifically significant global warming in the last 15 years. Period.
There's the reality, Pal. It is confirmed in the NOAA data.
You can acknowledge the Reality. Or dodge it. Either way, it isn't going anywhere.
#11 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 01:02 AM
The evidence for you being a barely significant troll is vast and significant.
However there seems to be little evidence that you can read or understand what you have read.
To the readers with heads for thinking, read the link to the interview and look up the definition of statistically significant. You can't construct an arguement based on words strung together, like popcorn on a string, while ignoring what exactly what the speaker said and what the words mean in context. When you do so, you are choosing to be inaccurate and have earned the same contempt you show for everybody else.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 08:06 AM
From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , "Philip D. Jones" , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 10:42 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4
#14 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 07:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 07:54 PM
For those who want just the rebuttal to the Trenberth bit of popcorn, it's 1 minute into this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY
and 4:50 into this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg
Though I recommend people watch all 4 videos above.
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 09:16 PM
Thimbles, this discussion has turned into a Punch and Judy show. Obviously you won't convince padkiller (or me) with another youtube link, nor will you be swayed by his (or my) logic. It's a mirror of the current state of the media; the Times shouts AG alarmism while the Journal cries fraud.
The upstart? AGW alarmism is dead as a doornail. Cap and Trade legislation is now impossible, as likely are future efforts to turn the IPCC donkey cart into a gleaming Mercedes.
My suggestion is that we start over and focus on simple measures like energy efficiency and pollution mitigation that we all can agree on. The faster you and others lose the apocalyptic visions the better for all of us.
#17 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 10:30 PM
JLD hits the nail on the head...
The IPCC is done... Not just because skeptics say so, but because India says so. The Indian government's independent climate change panel will nail the coffin shut on the AGW nonsense.
When the Evironmental Minister of India calls the IPCC's silliness "climate evangelism", there is a problem there that Beavis and Butthead videos on YouTube won't be able to fix.
Of course burning fossil fuels is long-term recipe for disaster - not to the climate, but to the global economy- but the anti-capitalists who pray to the AGW gods don't want to hear this.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 11:03 PM
Question: Are you going to retract this "The Indian government's independent climate change panel will nail the coffin shut on the AGW nonsense." when the Indian government releases its findings and, in fact, accepts and confirms climate change/AGW?
Personally, I'd love to "focus on simple measures like energy efficiency and pollution mitigation" but
a) that doesn't mean we can ignore the science. If the science says that catastrophic results are very likely if we push above 2°C change, and details how and where those catastrophes occur, it would be imprudent, at the very least, to make no plans to adapt to or prevent them.
b) what makes you think the same people who attack science as a "global anticapitalist fraud cult" are going to let you discuss "energy efficiency and pollution mitigation" in a sane and rational manner? The global economy tanked because clowns like this ignored economic realities. Obama saved the banks without nationalizing them and throwing the clowns on the street, instead making them flush with cheap taxpayer capital. Now the American government is trying to put some regulation on dangerous economic activity, these clowns are calling the basic rules of transparency and honesty SOCIALISM.
Nothing will satisfy their demands but nothing. No response to crisis. No monitoring of problems. No transparency. No open and fair discussion.
So even if we were to jettison "the apocalypse" which is not apocalyptic, but measured predictions based on the best models we know, and stick to the simple stuff like "energy efficiency and pollution mitigation", we're still going to be called socialists by people who want to ensure nothing gets done.
And, unfortunately, that is not an acceptable option.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 04:19 AM
In the greater scheme of international politics, it doesn't matter what the Indian climate change panel determines, although a truly independent assessment will quickly debunk the AGW silliness (India's national motto is "Truth Alone Triumphs" after all).
The mere fact that such an independent climate chane review has been impaneled spells the end of the road for the IPCC. India is an erstwhile Believingist government that has seen the scientific light.
If the Indian review tears apart the IPCC, then the AGW is dead because the developed nations will completely stop the money flow into AGW stupidity. If the Indian review substantially concurs witht he IPCC, the political war will begin in earnest, given the dynamics (India is fast becoming a superpower) and the changes in the political landscape. Such an outcome, if it occurs, will only spur further review.
Either way, the IPCC is dead as doornail. DOA at Reality General Hospital after the Climategate trainwreck.
As I wrote earlier, when the Environmental Minister of a country with more that billion citizens labels a report as "evangelism", throws out the report and creates an independent review board.... You have a problem on your hands that you're not going to be able to address with Beavis and Butthead videos.
#20 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 09:14 AM
padkiller writes with the glazed look of a zealot in his eye, "In the greater scheme of international politics, it doesn't matter what the Indian climate change panel determines, although a truly independent assessment will quickly debunk the AGW silliness (India's national motto is "Truth Alone Triumphs" after all)."
Thimbles rationally responds with utmost rationality: No, I suppose in the greater scheme of anything, it doesn't matter what the India you vouched for says, it doesn't matter what the climatologist you quoted really says, it doesn't matter what the Northern Passage says, it doesn't matter what your thermometer this summer is going to say.
You, who demand accuracy and consistency from everybody else, have no standards for yourself or the authorities you quote. You have made up your mind based on a perceived political reality and so your support of the scientific process is conditioned on how its research supports your political "facts".
Well, an IPCC report is not the like the bible, where you can refute its infallibility and you refute god, the IPCC is just a collection of scientific findings. If there is a problem with a scientific finding, if there is a problem with the whole report, then more accurate work needs to be done. Okay, 2035 was a bad date for Himalayan glacial decline. Does that mean there is NO Himilayan glacial decline?
Maybe some of the glacial decline in the Himalayas is based on factors unrelated to current global temperature anomalies. (The high altitudes rendering increases of a degree still in the range below freezing) Does that mean that NO glacial retreats are related to AGW?
Whatever your claims about Himalayan this or email that, none of you have refuted any of the basic facts of AGW.
And whatever you say about "Beavis and Butthead" youtube videos, it doesn't change the fact that they refute the shoddy points that you brought up.
PS.
http://www.ndtv.com/news/india/new_body_to_study_himalayan_glaciers_jairam.php
"Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced...
"Health of glaciers are cause for concern. They are melting, retreating, threatening our water security and we have to be cautious. But we are now setting up a National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology in Dehra Dun for monitoring, modelling and research," Ramesh told reporters.
"We should not depend only on reports from the UN body. Its fault was that it didn't do original research and derives assessments from published literature," he said."
Doesn't sound like he's refuting or advocating for global warming, nor does it sound like he's saying everything is hunky dory and we "evangelists" are worrying about nothing.
Instead of being so sure of yourself when you've got nothing but ignorance and cheapshots to back it up, read up on the science, come to a conclusion based on the science, and then present your conclusion using science based arguments.
It's not too much to ask, is it? You seem to berate everybody else for failing to perfectly do so. Do it yourself if you think you're so much better at it.
#21 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 02:12 PM
PS:
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/enviornment/two-resignations-many-fallouts-in-climate-geopolitics-comment_100323848.html
The take away:
"Two big-ticket resignations last week will have far-reaching effects on climate geopolitics. The decision by India’s top climate negotiator Shyam Saran to quit will make it easier for the US to push emerging economies to do more to combat climate change...
Saran championed India’s traditional position,..
In essence, this position was that rich countries were almost totally responsible for climate change and were liable to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) that were warming the earth and also to help poor countries that were suffering the most as a result.
Added to this, the G77 said poor countries had a right to develop and there was no question of asking them to reduce or cap their GHG emissions...
Ramesh started to announce how India would move towards a low carbon economy (carbon dioxide is the main GHG), partly because it was in India’s own long-term interest and partly in an effort to make rich countries come up with stronger GHG emission mitigation commitments...
Ramesh’s move brought India closer to what the US wanted. The minister faced a lot of flak inside the country and made compromises along the way, but evidently received the backing of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the essential direction change.
The inevitable consequence: Saran’s exit has come now."
What? What was that you said about an Environmental Minister of a country with more that billion citizens? I can't hear you. Stop muttering.
#22 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 02:34 PM
Thimble projects: You, who demand accuracy and consistency from everybody else, have no standards for yourself or the authorities you quote. You have made up your mind based on a perceived political reality and so your support of the scientific process is conditioned on how its research supports your political "facts".
padikiller: No... I made up my mind on the basis of observation - the globe isn't warmning at any alarming rate- the sea level isn't rising at any alarming rate - the science isn't there to link CO2 to warming- etc.
Thimbles defends the Gospel of Gore: Well, an IPCC report is not the like the bible, where you can refute its infallibility and you refute god, the IPCC is just a collection of scientific findings. If there is a problem with a scientific finding, if there is a problem with the whole report, then more accurate work needs to be done
padikiller concurs: For one we agree... There is indeed a LOT more work to be done..
Look, Pal... I'm not the one who's calling the IPCC fairy tale "climate evangelism" - the Indian government is... If you have a beef with that, take it up with them.
I'm just noting that the IPCC is dead. Finito.
By the time the Indians complete an independent climate review, the global political landscape will have been altered so dramitically that no matter what the outcome of the review, the AGW movement will almost certainly go nowhere. You've got growing industrial power in India, China, Brazil, Russia, etc... and a few years delay is more than enough time for these growing CO2 producers to get together and knoock the wind out the AGW movement.
#23 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 03:37 PM
Despite the rush to be the last word in every thread padilkiller fails at finding the facts. I knock the wind out of him in every post.
Nailed and convicted by the facts.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1310&commentnum=1082#comment_1082
#24 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 04:51 PM
padikiller making sweet love to his life size poster of Ayn Rand: No... I made up my mind on the basis of observation - the globe isn't warmning at any alarming rate- the sea level isn't rising at any alarming rate - the science isn't there to link CO2 to warming- etc.
Thimbles calmly rationally interrupts: Based on what observations? How can you claim " the globe isn't warmning at any alarming rate- the sea level isn't rising at any alarming rate - the science isn't there to link CO2 to warming- etc." without mentioning the science your claims are based on?
The answer? There is no science behind your claims. There is only the political "reality" that greed is good and regulation is bad and I want to retain the right to emit as much methane from my mouth as I want. Your ridicule of other's science is based on the stuff you want to believe, not on observation.
"Jesus, you climate change catastrophe cultists! Your problem is you don't know how to pretend. If you would just be like me and click your heels three times saying "There's no place like home. There's no place like home" all these problems would disappear."
That's a nice story, but it ain't my bedtime and I ain't your kid,
Speaking of which:
padkiller wipes the rabid foam of a desperate denialist from his mouth: "Look, Pal... I'm not the one who's calling the IPCC fairy tale "climate evangelism" - the Indian government is... If you have a beef with that, take it up with them.
I'm just noting that the IPCC is dead. Finito."
And?
You can claim the IPCC is dead all you like and I'm sure there are some who will listen, some people love a good fish story, but there's a basic fact that you keep missing.
THE IPCC DOES NOT EQUAL AGW.
For instance, the Indian government - which you brought up - is criticizing the IPCC. Does that mean it's denying AGW? That it isn't convinced by science around the world that indicates change is afoot and human activity is responsible? That the consumer needs of a BILLION PEOPLE does not produce in them horrible visions of what the waste will be like if they follow the piggy American model?
No. They worry about their water supply, they are becoming pro-active on the AGW problem with or without international co-operation, they are sacrificing their traditional positions due to their recognition of a serious crisis, and they are calling for better science upon which to base their actions.
You are amplifying the criticism of a part into a denial of the whole, which is what you denialists do ALL THE TIME, which forces genuine researchers and advocates to silence their own criticism because [url=http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/open-letter-from-glacier-scientist.html]it's 100% guaranteed that some * is going to misrepresent it[/url].
So keep telling stories, since that is all you got, [url=http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/lets_get_this_party_organized.php#comment-22531]Dr. Ouija McStorytime[/url],
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 09:47 PM
Ah Hell. should have used my a href tags here. I am out of practice. (though I am pleased that my [url] mistake allows me to post more than two web links in a post without triggering the dreaded spam filter)
#26 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 09:53 PM
Statistical Signifigance.
padkiller responds: Huh uh huh. He said Tistical.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 21 Feb 2010 at 11:37 PM
Stupid CJR filter crap.
A href doesn't work.
Fine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PWDFzWt-Ag Statistical signifigance.
#28 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Feb 2010 at 12:04 AM
@Thimbles: A href works, but you need to use quotation marks before and after the link. So it'd look like this:
#29 Posted by Justin Peters, CJR on Mon 22 Feb 2010 at 12:28 AM
You mean like this <a href="_____________">CJR's SPAM FILTERS SUCK!</a> ?
Let me try.. Don't taze me bro! (fast forward 2 minutes in)
Don't you folks understand you're acting like the hitler youth?
#30 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 22 Feb 2010 at 05:20 AM
padikiller is as tiresomely wrong here as is his on all the other climate blogs he gets schooled on. Is there a CJR filter just for him? Please?
#31 Posted by Steven Sullivan, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 04:40 PM
Must be a different padikiller getting under your thin skin, Steve.
I don't post on any climate blogs. Or indeed on any other blogs nowadays...
If I am wrong, why do you want a filter? Only the truth hurts...
Censorship is a trademark of liberals.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 08:47 PM
You Beliievingists canweep and gnash your teeth here all you want....
But do you honestly think that any government in the world is going to toss money at CO2 reduction now?
Seriously?
Equus mortis.
Hop on Facebook and tweet yourselves up another way to lash out at the Man...
#33 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 23 Feb 2010 at 08:54 PM
Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate is too stupid to be credible regarding either.
#34 Posted by garhighway, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 11:40 AM
No money for CO2 reduction eh? Try Google for something other than wingnut sites that repeat the catalog of fallacies and lies that is your entire dialogue.
They already are.
http://www.ambvilnius.um.dk/en/menu/Politics/EnergyAndClimateChange/DanishGovernmentMoneyAvailableForCO2ReductionProjectsInLithuania/
Go Tweet yourself, Troll.
#35 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 01:26 PM
Professor York, B.A., Super-secret U.S. Government Scientist, gloated prematurely: No money for CO2 reduction eh? Try Google for something other than wingnut sites that repeat the catalog of fallacies and lies that is your entire dialogue.
They already are.
http://www.ambvilnius.um.dk/en/menu/Politics/EnergyAndClimateChange/DanishGovernmentMoneyAvailableForCO2ReductionProjectsInLithuania/
padikiller responds magnanimously, as always: Er, "Doc"?.... You might want to take a look at the date of the article you posted... (April 16, 2008)..
Things have changed a tad in the CO2 credit silliness in the last two years, Professor...
There is something most assuredly rotten in Denmark these days!...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam
No offense, Professor York, but we kind of expect you Super-Secret U.S. Government Scientist-Types to keep up a little better than this, OK?
Work on it.
#36 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 02:59 PM
This stuff has been underway for years and will not stop. You may want to get a grip on the world outside of the British tabloids. Their reasoning isn't exactly cutting edge these days. Global warming hasn't stopped and neither has funding for CO2 reduction, sequestration and alternative energies. Take a look at Shell. They know which way the wind is blowing even if blowhards don't.
#37 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 05:26 PM
Carbon trading is rife with opportunity for fraud and one reason why carbon taxes are better. How is clamping down on this business flaw with regulation a sign of demise? Au contraire, it's a sign of self-correction. This is something you wouldn't have a clue about. It's an example of regulation working to fix a problem with business ethics. They've been the problem all along. If a program doesn't remove carbon, it's no good. This is the only measurement that is valid.
#38 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 05:33 PM
Yeah, not much in the works. These companies and governments have read the emails. They know it's over. Snicker...
http://www.co2captureproject.org/aboutus.html
#39 Posted by Mark A. York, CJR on Wed 24 Feb 2010 at 05:58 PM