The Reference Frame: Carbon allowances jump 32 percent after a vote
These carbon "markets" are totally insane because the price may brutally change all the time and it de facto changes mainly because of votes like this. So it's a market but a couple of 68 parasitic corrupt bureaucrats is de facto determining the price they want, by adjusting the caps appropriately. The potential for corruption – using the algorithms above or others (ones that may include shorting) – is nearly infinite. If there were a problem with the greenhouse gases, and there isn't any, a straight tax or extra CO2 fee would surely be a more honest solution than this market-that-isn't-a-real-market.
Hysterical German Newspaper: Climate Protection “Question Of Life And Death”
In a nutshell – stop questioning the climate threat and start falling into line with the movement. Everything is at stake.
Of course, that is not true. It is hysterical. I wonder if Minister Röttgen or the writers at the Süddeutsche have ever read a single scientific paper on the subject of climate change. This climate ”life and death” nonsense is what one typically hears from those who are either completely hysterical, or from people who maliciously spread hysteria.
Sympathy for the Devil | Planet3.0
They were unlikely to be voluntary cooperative with the CRU investigation. As a result, there are bona fide reasons to seize their computers.
Bastardi and WeatherBELL « Musings from the Chiefio
In the “happy talk” part of Q&A the interviewer asked something about expected cold from a blizzard on the way, and Joe went into one of his wonderful ‘this is how it works and why I am saying this’ expositions. Seems he’s expecting a LOAD of cold to come down toward Montana with temperatures, IIRC, like 30 F below normal at the same time there will be temps like 20 F above normal down toward the South East.
When these two collide, things are to get wild.
Stabilizing The Climate | Real Science
Nine of the ten deadliest US hurricanes occurred before 1960. Two of them occurred in 1915.
1 comment:
Did Ed actually read the emails before telling us what's not in them?
Many of them, yes. You didn't bother, though, did you.
If you did bother, would you care to explain anything you found that indicates serious problems with the science, or any ethical or legal issues?
Post a Comment