Who benefits?

[iamspecial]

If there is no evidence that human behaviour is affecting the climate

WHO IS BENEFITING? from the theory?
remember this theory has been around for approx 40yrs

[marchesarosa]

Well, here's two multinationals for a start - Corus and Tata

(see "Redcar? Copenhagen? India?" thread below)

"The real gain to Corus from stopping production at Redcar, however, is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission projections, be worth up to £600 million over the three years before current allocations expire.

But this is only half the story. In India, Corus's owner, Tata, plans to increase steel production from 53 million tonnes to 124 million over the same period. By replacing inefficient old plants with new ones which emit only "European levels" of CO2, Tata could claim a further £600 million under the UN's Clean Development Mechanism, which is operated by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – the organisers of the Copenhagen conference. Under this scheme, organisations in developed countries such as Britain – ranging from electricity supply companies to the NHS – can buy the right to exceed their CO2 allocations from those in developing countries, such as India. The huge but hidden cost of these "carbon permits" will be passed on to all of us, notably through our electricity bills."

Then there are the usual band of plutocrats running the Energy companies and Carbon Trading exchanges. Did you know carbon is set to become the biggest traded "commodity"
on the planet?

Don't you do any in depth critical reading at all, specialpeople?

Tut tut!

[marchesarosa]

Like all other sane people I DO believe human activity affects regional and possibly global climate.

Cutting down forests removes a carbon sink, for example and changes wind and precipitation patterns.

Sprinkling soot on snow reduces the albedo effect and makes snow and ice melt faster.

Concrete and tarmac cause urban heat island effect.

Building the Aswan High Dam has caused subsidence of the Nile delta.

Removal of the original coastal forests in Australia has caused desertification inland.

Growing cotton via irrigation from rivers in Central Asia has dried up the Aral sea.

Over-exploitation of the water table can make some islands sink relative to sea-level so that it looks like "climatechange".

To name but a few.

I even believe that the extra atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel MAY be slightly raising the global temperature. But I don't think it's a matter to worry about. From what I read I do not think growth of GHGs will have catastrophic consequences.

The climate ALWAYS changes and often it changes back again.

But perhaps you are asking the same question as the rather wide-eyed Campbell Brown of CBS, "What could possibly be the motivation be for scientific fraud?"

When governments and international organisations throw billions of the taxpayer's money at climatologists with the instruction that they find the Anthropogenic Global Warming "signal' they will damned well find it, even if they have to torture the data to get it.

You would, too, if your future livelihood depended on it, I dare say.

[iamspecial]

Not good enough

Seeing as Corus and Tata did not own any Steel Works in the UK when the theory was first floated.
TATA did not buy Corus until 2007 - the theories were being taken seroiusly before then

[marchesarosa]

YOU asked who was benefitting from the theory and I mentioned a few.

Sorry if you don't like the answer.

[marchesarosa]

And it's not a "theory", specialpeople, it's a "scenario". You can't even legitimate it with the title of "hypothesis" because it is totally unfalsifiable.

[marchesarosa]

I suggest you read through the some or even all the threads on this blog, specialpeople, and then you'll know as much as I do about the climate.

[iamspecial]

ROFL

[marchesarosa]

No gain without pain, I'm afraid ol' pal!

[marchesarosa]

"No one but utterly naïve greenies believe that the man-made global warming hype is anything to do with climate – much less saving the planet. It is, as always, about power, influence - and money.

Out of literally thin air, the money-men have been able to conjure up a brand new product on which to increase their riches, the fabulous "carbon" which in less than a decade will – they hope – underpin an "industry" worth more than $2 trillion a year.

That alone justified the enormous effort which is being made to cement global warming as an issue in the public consciousness and, more importantly, in the legislative systems of the world. And it is the latter which is most important. Once the elimination of "carbon" is locked into enough legislative systems, it does not matter what people think – the revenue stream will be secure."


eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

[iamspecial]

Dec 16, 2009 0:31:38 GMT marchesarosa said:

"No one but utterly naïve greenies believe that the man-made global warming hype is anything to do with climate – much less saving the planet. It is, as always, about power, influence - and money.

Some industries are gone down the denial route others have jumped on the bandwagon as it makes good financial sense

Out of literally thin air, the money-men have been able to conjure up a brand new product on which to increase their riches, the fabulous "carbon" which in less than a decade will – they hope – underpin an "industry" worth more than $2 trillion a year.

Dont you just love free enterpriseand market forces

That alone justified the enormous effort which is being made to cement global warming as an issue in the public consciousness and, more importantly, in the legislative systems of the world. And it is the latter which is most important. Once the elimination of "carbon" is locked into enough legislative systems, it does not matter what people think – the revenue stream will be secure."

The fact that people are going to be able to make money does not detract from the original research

eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

[marchesarosa]

Remember the examples I gave of human effects on climate higher up this thread? (#2) One of the things I mentioned was soot which is a harmful component of incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. How topical that remark was in view of some new research just published:

News Release On Soot Effects On Climate In The Himalayas
– Its Larger Than the Forcing From The Human Input Of CO2

read the full story here.

pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

[iamspecial]

Still contains carbon - the soot comes from burning, coal, wood and oil.
its man-made envioromental pollution. This is where an input of technology and money can make a real difference. More efficient stoves, hydroelectric power, solar panels and stoves.

[marchesarosa]

The solution to soot is more efficient combustion of fossil fuels. We have the fossil fuel here in the UK, 300 years supply apparently. We also have the technology for clean coal burn. We should use them.

But it is India's soot which is affecting the Himalayas. It is India that desperately needs to reduce its pollution. CO2 is the clean CLEAR air that we breath. Soot is DIFFERENT, specialpeople. The remedy for soot is technologically achievable NOW and relatively simple.

[marchesarosa]

This is China but the solution is available for them too.