Will New UN Deal Force the Government to Deny Climate Change?

Yippe-Ki-Ya · Dec 11, 2012

'They sound so ethically correct. They appear to offer a decent return on savings in these troubled times. Yet carbon credits are at the centre of increasingly adventurous scams.

'And last Tuesday morning, police investigating a suspected fraud network of investment firms selling worthless carbon credits arrested ten men and a woman in co-ordinated raids on offices in the City of London, Essex and Hertfordshire.

'The raids follow mounting official concern at the scale of carbon credit scams, where investors pay thousands of pounds for overpriced certificates that are said to be linked to environmentally friendly projects such as tree planting.

'There is virtually no resale market for the certificates and investors typically lose every penny.' - Daily Mail

'Australia has backed a global climate change deal that offers poor countries financial aid for the "loss and damage" they suffer from extreme weather events, in a new step that could one day leave taxpayers with a $3 billion annual bill.

'Developing nations acclaimed the deal for clearing the way for compensation claims against advanced economies as the summit failed to set new targets to cut greenhouse emissions, further delaying the crucial decisions until 2014.

'Climate Change Minister Greg Combet declared the "loss and damage" provisions would not leave Australia exposed to financial claims, insisting yesterday that the aim was merely to help countries adapt to change.

'But experts say the obligation - written into the global climate accord for the first time - would lead to long-term demands on rich countries to pay for rebuilding if hurricanes and other disasters could be linked to climate change.' - The Australian

normally wouldn't start a letter to you with two long quotes. But when I read these stories today I wanted to compare and contrast them.

In short, one involves a bunch of crooks forcibly taking money from uninformed people without their permission.

The other involves investment con-artists scamming people of their savings.

To my way of thinking, while the UK scam artists are clearly bad, at least they're taking money from willing participants.

But don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I like people falling for a scam. What I'm saying is that if they scam one person of their money, it doesn't mean the scammers get everyone else's money too.

Unlike how things work with the Carbon Tax, and how it will work with this new scheme the taxpayer is now on the hook for.

Who Decides Who Pays?

But that's the way government works. It's about coercion. It's about the government spending your money any way it likes. And unlike when you spend your money, the government doesn't even have to budget for it.

When you make a big purchase you have two options. You either save up for it and buy it or you take out a loan and then repay the loan.

If you go for the first option there's no problem. Although it may mean you have to sacrifice other spending. If you go for the second option then you need to figure out how you'll repay the loan.

But governments don't have to worry about that. They make the spending promise and convince the people that it's a worthy cause. And if it's expensive, so what? It's a worthy cause.

Only later does the government reveal how it will pay for the supposed worthy cause higher taxes.

That's exactly how the government will fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It will tear at the consciences of the Aussie public in order to pass the legislation. Then it will tear at consciences by saying the disabled will miss out if the government doesn't take your money.

That's why, in a way, I see the investment scammers as less harmful than government scammers.

However, the government's latest Climate Change policy creates an interesting set-up.

According to the Australian report, the Aussie taxpayer could face an annual bill of $3 billion to compensate developing countries. But only if it's shown that climate change caused the damage.

Quite how they'll prove (or disprove) that climate change caused a weather event is anyone's guess.

Besides, who will judge if a hurricane, tornado, tsunami or landslide is a result of so-called climate change?

Surely not those impacted by it, and not those who pay the claim.

After all, if your house floods it's not your decision whether the insurance company pays out. The insurance company decides, usually after engaging an assessor.

I can only guess that the United Nations will decide...most likely based on advice from its panel of climate change experts.

So you're not really talking about an independent body. Having screamed loudly about climate change for goodness knows how long, do you really think the UN will deny a developing country a big payout after a climate change-induced natural disaster?

Will the Government Try to Skip This Bill?

But as I said, that could put the government in a spot. The Aussie government is about as shrill on climate change as anyone. That's easy when it doesn't have to pay the bill...when it can just raise money by robbing taxpayers.

But the Aussie government is in new territory now. It's running a budget deficit (the government spends more than it taxes), and it's in debt by $242 billion (the equivalent of 65% of the government's annual spending).

The longer and further the government runs a budget deficit, the less likely it will volunteer for new spending measures...especially if it involves spending dollars overseas while unemployment and taxes go up, the budget deficit widens, and the national debt rises.

What that means is you could have the amusing situation where the Aussie government argues against the impact of climate change in order to get out of a $3 billion annual compensation payment to developing countries.

Of course, that wouldn't be easy. As I showed you last week, the Aussie government has helped fund a multi-billion industry that will only survive as long as climate change exists.

There's a big lobby group, funded by government money, to keep the climate change story alive. And the Age newspaper helps with the kind of hyperbolic nonsense it printed over the weekend in an article titled, 'Five degrees hotter?'

The article paints a gloomy picture of what the earth will be like in 2100 if temperatures rise five degrees. According to the Age, if that happens the 'Arctic ice cap may disappear' and 'Sea could inundate Kakadu'.

And apparently, if temperatures reach an average six degrees higher, 'The effects of this level of temperature rise are considered so extreme that little reliable modelling exists.'

The assumption is that the modelling for lower temperature rises is reliable. But the notion that they can predict a five degree rise but not a six degree rise smells nothing short of fishy.

Anyway, what's the source for these shocking predictions, slavishly reported by the Age?

That's right, organisations and people who rely on government money. If those same organisations and people stop the fear mongering on climate change, guess what happens? Governments will stop funding them.

So you can hardly call these bodies disinterested and independent. It's in their interests to hype the story as much as possible. The bigger the hype the more money the government will give them.

Has the Temperature Ever Risen This Much?

But you only have to look at the following chart from NASA to see that the climate change argument falls apart without much analysis:

Source: NASA

NASA has modelled changing temperatures going back 1,500 years. Of course there's a margin for error, which you can see in the grey area around the chart line.

But as you can see, for most of the past 1,500 years, temperatures have been below the Global Temperature Anomaly (this measures the temperature against a benchmark. In other words, a minus figure means the temperature is below the benchmark, a plus figure means it's above the benchmark).

In fact, the total temperature range from the benchmark over 1,500 years is only about 1.2 degrees. Yet the Age would have you believe that temperatures will rise five degrees in just the next 90 years.

As I say, the analysis and argument smells fishy. When was the last time the world temperature climbed five degrees in just 90 years?

But anyway, the climate changers like to use the right-hand side of the chart to show how temperatures have taken off since the Industrial Revolution. They say this provides total proof that human activity has caused rising temperatures.

I'll repeat again, I have no idea if climate change is true or not. And I believe the only way to prevent climate change (assuming it's caused by humans) is to allow individuals to manage the problem, rather than letting governments spend billions of dollars on expensive, pointless, and tainted research.

But looking at the NASA chart, we'll make another simple observation...

Between the years 1000 and 1350 the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) fell from +0.2 to -0.6. That's a range of 0.8 degrees. Compare that to the period between 1750 and 2000 when the GTA went from -0.3 to +0.5. That's also a range of 0.8 degrees.

The global human population today is seven billion. During the period 1000 to 1350 the world population was less than half a billion.

If human activity really does impact the climate then surely with a population of seven billion, it should have a much bigger impact on temperatures than when the world population was only a fraction the size.

Of course, the climate change supporters will say the full impacts are still taking place, and that the full effects won't be realised for many years...that's why it's important to act now.

250 Years is a Short Time

The trouble is NASA's latest chart shows that perhaps the so-called warming period is already over:

Source: NASA

As I reported last week, recent data from the UK shows that global temperatures show no net increase in 16 years.

Granted, 16 years is a short timeframe. But given the age of the Earth, the climate change lobby's reliance on the 250 or so years since the Industrial Revolution is a short timeframe too.

Let me finish up by saying one thing: this isn't supposed to be a point-by-point refutation of climate change as a science.

And neither is this meant to be a denial of the existence of climate change. The point I'm making is the point I've made all along, that despite the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on climate science, scientists have no more clue about the science behind climate change than you or me.

The scientists are simply following the money. And right now, for the science community, the money is in frightening the public on climate change and convincing governments to spend ever greater amounts of taxpayer money paying for their research.
Click to expand...

Cheers,
Kris

Jislizard · Dec 11, 2012

Nice work using the 'quotes' feature

capt.sparrow · Dec 11, 2012

This is a very contentious issue. Good for debating though

AngloSaxon · Dec 11, 2012

Good article. Just proves we don't know what we know and don't know what we don't know either.

hiho · Dec 11, 2012

tax on thin air, tis all

Yippe-Ki-Ya · Dec 11, 2012

Jislizard said:

Nice work using the 'quotes' feature
Click to expand...

yeh i've been coppin' a hard time over that lately

Log in or Sign up

Will New UN Deal Force the Government to Deny Climate Change?

Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

capt.sparrow New Member

AngloSaxon Active Member

hiho Active Member Silver Stacker

Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Will New UN Deal Force the Government to Deny Climate Change?

Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

capt.sparrow New Member

AngloSaxon Active Member

hiho Active Member Silver Stacker

Yippe-Ki-Ya New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches