Gentlemen, Place Your Bets..
THURSDAY OCTOBER 01, 2009
The World Bank etc used to monitor gold reserves. Somewhat like the old world system where a country's gold reserves were the base value of its national currency, soon the base value of a country or forest groups carbon emission certificates is going to be sequestrated carbon. In short, a forest, under government control, is money in the government bank, suitable for gambling futures on, in the new international carbon trading exchange. Carbon trading has just begun, worth 22 billion US dollars. Governments are punters in this virtual casino armed with chips paid for by taxpaying citizens.
You may wonder why talk of climate change has suddenly escalated. Well, between February 2005 when the Kyoto protocol came into effect and November 1st, 2006, because of a smaller Kyoto membership than was hoped and planned for, the value of sequestrated carbon dropped from 29.6 euros per tonne to 10.30 euros per tonne, representing a drop of 19.30 euros per tonne. Trading chips on the world stage had quickly become not as valuable. The only way to restore value to the 'gold' was by whipping up climate change hysteria in the hope that public pressure would drive carbon emitting industries back to the emission certificate trading auctions. More action on the floor of the casino ensures a bigger purse for the house. A bigger purse means more winnings for players who think they are in good positions. Hence the spending more on research and hype for 'climate change'. There are billions if not trillions of dollars involved in such a long term globalised venture. There is no shortage of suckers falling prey to the Stern Review spin-doctoring commissioned by the UK government, despite evidence that it is scaremongering-perpetuated to secure this enormous financial gain for the carbon emission certificate traders.
In the UK’s The Guardian newspaper, plans are afoot for carbon trading ‘credit cards’ for everyone. Every citizen will be issued with a carbon credit card to be swiped every time they bought petrol, paid an energy utility bill or booked an airline ticket - under a nationwide carbon rationing scheme that could come into operation within five years, according to a feasibility study commissioned by the environment secretary, David Miliband, and published recently. In an interview with the Guardian Mr Miliband said the idea of individual carbon allowances had “a simplicity and beauty that would reward carbon thrift”. Under the scheme, everybody would be given an annual allowance of the carbon they could expend on a range of products, probably food, energy and travel. If they wanted to use more carbon, they would be able to buy it from somebody else, even from a bloke in a bar. And they could sell any surplus. He said: “It is a way of pricing carbon emissions into individual behaviour and it would recognise carbon thrift, as well as economic thrift. Twenty years ago if I had said 8 million people would have a Tesco loyalty card, no one would have believed me.”
There are murmuring signs of the same happening here. We have politicians promising to plant a tree every time they fly to another country. Green Party co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons admonished all New Zealanders to curtail overseas holidays because of the carbon dioxide emissions produced by commercial airlines. She ‘carbon-rationalized’ her recent trip to Europe a few weeks before by informing us she had planted some trees on her organic farm this year. Then we read that Green MP, Metiria Turei, was visiting the upper house of the Australian Parliament. There were no reports of her rowing across the Tasman, so can anyone advise how Ms Turei arranged her ‘carbon compensation’? Did Ms Fitzsimons plant enough trees to cover for her too, did Ms Turei plant her own trees somewhere, or is this just another example of the hypocrisy of the greenhouse gas global warming hysteria? Will it get to the stage that every time we go for a run(producing more carbon dioxide) we will be obliged to plant a daisy? Such a scheme could keep the unemployed usefully engaged forever. But this craziness appears to be the way the world is heading.
Climate change yay or nay, is quite a long way from this new credit-swapping currency. Global warming is not really happening in NZ where we had the coldest June for 45 years, a record cold winter in some parts and a cooler spring than normal. We are also looking at cooler summer temperatures. In Australia bush fires have sprung up, which they get every year, and down here we have had icebergs. One could blame the Australian drought, which was last as bad in 1913, on global warming, or one can note that 1913 and 2006 were both maximum lunar declination years, and a cycle may be operating. Noting also that at least some rain has fallen since 1913, Australia has perhaps passed the peak of the drier conditions, so maybe the talk of drought may lessen there over this next year. One could also blame their summer heat increase on the first week of December’s full moon+N dec combo, which makes fires flare up the most, after which temperatures drop significantly, as they have done over the past week. Or one could blame global warming for snow or no snow, icebergs or not, drought or flood, and when the dog eats your homework.
Regrettably, skeptics like me only succeed in fanning the flames. Global warming is simply about big business opportunities, and the media have successfully captured public interest enough to arouse curiosity. Even Charlie Pederson, president of Federated Farmers, has said that farmers must work with government to find solutions for the methane problem. Carbon dioxide is one thing, but apparently belching cows make this country unique in contributing more to greenhouse gases.
It will be found that in a post-maximum-lunar-declination year (2007) temperatures, both hot and cold will not hit the extremes of the past two years. This will be pointed to as evidence that controls, regulations and penalties vis-a-vie carbon taxes and forest planting measures for certificate-trading, have been working. When sealevels are found to have remained the same and not risen 65metres in a decade, once again it will be thank goodness we acted in time. It will occur to no one to look at the sun, moon, planets and their cycles and millions will continue to be spent in research and development in the search for answers in other places: ice cores, tree rings etc etc.. The infrastructure is now in place, and many thousands of jobs now depend on this industry of 'climate change'. For the same reason they may never find a cure for cancer, because too many are earning money out of cancer continuing, likewise they may have little interest finding out what causes climate to undergo change. The fact that the word "climate" means 'change due to embedded cycles', will continue to elude them.
There is no funding available for research into weather and climate cycles, nor alternative viewpoints, or even investigations as to whether or not global warming is an international fraud. In NZ in 1990-2001 the National Science Strategy Committee for Climate Change was established for dispensing funding assessed at a promised $27.5 million a year.
ref: http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/reports/research-needs-dec00.pdf. By 2005 New Zealand was actually spending around $23 million each year on 'climate change' research. Around $20 million of this money was administered by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology through their Vote RS&T programme. Other sources of funding include the private sector, universities, government departments and local government. A key resource for climate change is New Zealand Government's climate change website - this is the gateway into the work of the New Zealand Climate Change programme, an interdepartmental process led by the Ministry for the Environment and involving 10 Government departments and one Crown agency. Funding is available for reports, cabinet papers, press releases, information for schools, and newsletters, ref: http://www.gns.cri.nz/research/programmes.html. By 2005 the real funding for research had increased by over 56% since 1999, with $45 million for the Vote RS&T budget, taking it to $586m, exclusive of GST, and $25.4m for the PBRF, taking it to $163m. Present estimates are around a billion dollars of public money alone, going into a virtual bottomless drain, from a Labour government that now labels climate change the world's biggest environmental threat. The country still has a tired and rundown third world health system, inadequate police funding, and illiterates leaving school. I still haven't seen a cow belch and haven't met anyone else who has either.