"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)
This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over five years now. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"
PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...
Saturday, 12 July 2014
No, BBC, computer models aren’t 'evidence’
In all the excitement over a ruling by the head of the BBC complaints department that it had been “wrong” to allow the climate sceptic Lord Lawson to appear on the Today programme alongside a real scientist – Prof Sir Brian Hoskins – one rather important thing was missed. As one of our chief cheerleaders for climate change alarmism, Hoskins is a computer modeller, funded at Imperial College by Jeremy Grantham, a billionaire who believes that global warming is the gravest threat facing the planet. .....................How tellingly upside down it is, therefore, that the BBC should rule that “Lord Lawson’s views are not supported by the evidence of computer models”. Like Hoskins, the BBC has long shown that its group-think “narrative” is based entirely on those same models. Which is why it now seems more determined than ever to prevent its audiences from being given the actual facts, which are all that proper scientists should recognise as evidence"