Tuesday, February 06, 2007


There's gold in that there Global Warming!
The same people that are running around the nation touting the benefits of turning our state highways into toll roads are now salivating about the many ways they can cash in on the "Global Warming" hysteria. One of these is "carbon cap-and-trade", selling Carbon credits.
Morgan Stanley vice chairman Jon Anda wants us to “to think of climate change in cash flow terms: imagine a series of payments over many years to cover the damage from carbon emissions… Simply put, we have a carbon liability and the value of that liability is rising”.
"Although he doesn’t mention this in his Financial Times article, one big future winner may be Anda’s own firm. Morgan Stanley announced last October that it “plans to invest in approximately $3 billion of carbon/emission credits, projects and other initiatives related to greenhouse gas emissions over the next five years.”
"Another big winner may be Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs, part owner of the European Climate Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange – the exclusive marketplaces for trading carbon credits."
"And although Anda avoids discussing the all-important flip side of his conclusion, just who are the “losers” providing the “winners” with their dubiously-gained profits?

That’s easy. Just look in the mirror. As outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., wrote in the Dec. 18 Wall Street Journal, cap-and-trade “would cost the average American family more than $2,700 a year while having no measurable impact on global temperature.”

It's interesting that the evidence behind the much anticipated U.N.'s forth report on climate change was withheld for 4 or 5 months so that "changes... [can be] made after acceptance by the working group or the panel... to ensure consistency with the 'Summary for Policymakers'.


coboble said...

This gives it an interesting twist.
Usually it is the "Science Debunk" crowd which has the financial motive (I do use financial motive as a data point when trying to determine which side of an argument has the truth).
But in this case, both sides of the argument are poisoned with potential self interest.
But was it always that way? Was the idea of human caused global warming a reasonably believed scientific theory, by experts, having no potential financial gain from the theory?

So how do I judge my data. I don't have the science background to understand the data (and I would argue that very few do).
So what do I do?

Suppose we are a major cause of global warming, and I choose to believe otherwise?
What do I gain?
What do I potentially loose?

Suppose we are not a major cause of global warming, and I choose to believe we are, and act accordingly?
What do I gain?
What do I loose?

I would rather error on the side of the 2nd choice than that of the 1st choice.

There are other reasons, besides global warming, to cut down on our use of fossil fuels.

Bobkatt said...

Good questions. It seems that it is more and more difficult to glean the truth from the avalanch of information. With all the added news channels and access to the news media via the internet I get the feeling that I know less and less everyday.
I don't believe the "Science Debunking" crowd you speak of is always debunking science but rather debating the scientific method being used or the individuals motive for their "science". The global warming crowd is made up of thousands of scientists but many of their areas of expertise have nothing to do with climate change specifically.
How do you judge your data? I seriously doubt that you or I would be able to judge the data if it was accurate. That leaves you with the option of siding with whomever you trust the most. I am a ever increasing skeptic of most everything these days especially if it seems to be universally accepted and is being over promoted by the MSM. Another red flag for me is how the opposition is treated by the MSM. For example, the current suggestion that anyone who challenges the concenses of thought should be stripped of their credentials. Or, anyone that is asking for legitimate answers to what happened on 9/11 being called a traitor or a lunatic conspiracy nut.
As far as choosing to do what ever you can to limit your impact on this Earth I think that is great and try to do likewise however I am concerned that well meaning people will pass laws and surrender freedoms that will have no effect on the problem and only advance the totalitarian objective agenda of the globalists and seriously destroy our sovreignty and economy at home.

coboble said...

"How do you judge your data? I seriously doubt that you or I would be able to judge the data if it was accurate. That leaves you with the option of siding with whomever you trust the most."

So this would somewhat explain why beliefs in science are falling down political lines.
However both the far right and the far left are often ridiculously illogical. Both seem more concerned with making the other side look "wrong" than figuring out the truth. So I tend not to trust either.

The science debunking crowd is not "always" doing so with the motive of profit. In fact, we need open debate to be encouraged.
But some subset of that crowd is profit motivated. Some subset is politically motivated (interested in making someone look bad or wrong). And another subset is actually interested in the truth.

I think when it comes to global warming, I don't feel I have to know the truth because the very same practices which would be responsible behavior IF we are causing global warming, are responsible behaviors for other reasons as well. I am not faced with having to know the truth to pick a responsible behavior.