I have to agree the climate mitigation industry is fraudulent and perverse. Other examples I didn't catch in the article are that of the World Bank financing coal fired power stations in Africa and Asia and paying/bribing a staggering $US550m to Chinese CFC makers to alter their formula. In the latter case a couple of million dollars or a simple export prohibition would have resolved the issue.

The so called 'clean development' carbon offsets promoted by the UN are illogical in theory and fraudulent in practice. If I read OLO instead of driving to the library I've saved fuel. Presumably I can sell that erstwhile CO2 as a carbon credit. There's no limit to such carbon 'savings'. Even if there was a genuine CO2 saving why erase it by selling it as a credit, ie for no net reduction? In the case of tree planting offsets we know that many are exaggerated, counted multiple times and in any case the trees will ultimately burn or rot releasing back the CO2.

Despite all this I think emissions trading is a good idea but with offsets disallowed. Governments have shown not only do they lack the will to toughen the rules they also fail to get their own house in order.

Hoo-Bladi-Ray!

More facts and figures to support CLIMATEGATE is the biggest SCAM of all time.

Welcome to MARXIST INCOME REDISTRIBUTION 101.

Project #1901 is 100 acres of new brick-making businesses in Bangladesh. At current rates, over the 20-year lifespan of these brickfields, Denmark will transfer $40 million in mitigation fees to Project #1901. Bangladesh carbon marketers have announced that this price will double, bringing the total of this “developed to developing country” transfer to $80 million over 20 years.

And the GREENS.. (watermelons.. red on the inside) have as their policy

http://greens.org.au/node/775
Goals
The Australian Greens want:
8. a global economic system that promotes environmental sustainability, human rights and a decent standard of living for all.

13. enter into multilateral trade agreements, except where a bilateral trade agreement favours a developing country.

(=Income redistribution)

Principles:
The Australian Greens believe that:
1. global governance is essential to meet the needs of global peace and security, justice, human rights, poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability.

GLOBAL GOVERNANCE? ? ? scream/yell/brain_hemorrhage!

Strike me lucky what are these baboons on about ?

http://greens.org.au/node/764

3. establish BINDING national emission targets for 2012, 2020 and 2050 supported by a detailed strategy to reduce emissions from the
energy, transport, industry, waste and land management sectors.

THAT...= CAP (of cap and trade)

24. drive the equitable transition to a low carbon economy through a range of MARKET-BASED (Trade*) and REGULATORY (Cap*) mechanisms reflecting the real osts of greenhouse gas emissions.

(*not part of the wording)

THAT..= "TRADE" of cap and trade.

OH..what's this ? a congratulatory email to Bob Brown from Maurice Strong, CCX ?
and..oh..another.. from Al Gore of GIM. hmmmmm

"Each UN meeting requires carbon mitigation, ergo, there's plenty of money to be made!"

Platt recommends and urges the public to view money making fraud, "British Lord Christopher Monckton's" presentation too.

And there's plenty of money to be made with Teresa Platt at the helm of the Fur Commission US where minxs are incarcerated for their entire life and 3 million are brutally slaughtered every year in the US. She clucks over feeding the remains of minx to carnivorous animals and boasts that over 400 fashion designers currently incorporate 'natural fiber furs' in their collections. 'Beaver is great for eating too,' says Platt.

"Tyranny by treaty?" or "The Age of Stupid?"

Prota.. errr yeah.. but.. please..don't vote green... or Labour and tell everyone you can the same mate.. spread the word about these monsters and their odious anti Australian racist socialist agenda that aims first to break our souls and then our banks.

Yes the voice of reason

Countering the monopoly of expression demanded by the current forces of repeated failed collectivism.

The sooner people realise when you, via your UN appointed (not elected) representative puts money into the bowl of the beggar, you are condemning the beggar to aspire to nothing greater than a life of begging.

Really, Protagoras, if you're going to wax eloquent over the fate of minks you should learn how to spell the word first. It makes one's claims so much more credible. (You minx!)

But of course we needed to spend billions of dollars and waste tonnes of CO2 on a conference about how to reduce our production of CO2, because it is -- or was -- the new great hope for governments wanting their citizens to behave like willing sheep and vote them more powers. The Cold War is long over, the war on terrorism is running out of steam, the war on drugs is losing support, and the real war on those nasty foreigners is producing unforeseen results like dead Australian soldiers. AGW is the last hope of governments that want to whip up public hysteria for their own ends -- i.e. nearly all governments, including our own.

Still, hopefully the Copper Lady has enough political savvy to spot a change in the weather. She might even read a skeptical blog or two. She will be in good company: at least 124 working scientists around the world "do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."

http://tinyurl.com/2es3rqx

Well John J....I did not think I'd see the day when I agree with you :)

but for this:

AGW is the last hope of governments that want to whip up public hysteria for their own ends -- i.e. nearly all governments, including our own.

You deserve a hi 5!

Love your list of ‘climate scientists’ Jon J - TV weathermen, meteorologists etc. Guys like David E. Wojick et al - never having published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. And all those retired irrelevant old codgers, signing anything to get attention? Oh the hilarity of it but there’s always a few retards around to swallow the spin-doctoring.

Alas for the spin-doctors, and according to researchers from the Stanford University, the harsh, glaring reality is this:

Publishing Climate Scientists:

1. CE = Convinced by the evidence on climate change
2. UE = Unconvinced by the evidence on climate change

Only 2% of the UE group were in the top 50 of climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of publications)

Only 3% of the UE group were in the top 100 and only 2.5% in the top 200.

97% of self-identified, actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of anthropogenic climate change: Oooops!

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

No problems Jon J because bearing false witness is mandatory in your camp and you’re in good company with minx, Teresa Platt who makes obscene profits from the practice of anal and genital electrocution of fur-bearing animals, including mink, foxes, chinchillas and rabbits. But keep it quiet and try not to excite the camp followers!

Naturally there remains other slaughter methods for her industry, like neck-breaking, gassing, poisoning, clubbing, stomping and drowning.

Anway I’m sure Teresa knows best since she ran a public relations firm specializing in fisheries and other resource-based industries and had a 20-year involvement in the over-fished tuna industry, including many years as operations manager for her family's 1,000-ton seiner.

She’s also had 25 years' experience in public relations, marketing, government affairs, administration and management, with a strong background in resource-based industries working internationally.

Wow - bludging off the environment is profitable and indeed, for the banks that fund them. Violence, greed and ignorance look so good on Platt too (and indeed Palin) while they pimp for the fascist element in the party who are, by fair means or foul, ‘born to rule.'

Protagoras...

I hate to burst your bubble there but such figures as you presented don't really mean a lot. You can structure such things to make a case for anything, and then you can also mock and ridicule those outside your personal comfort loop... (have you formed a club with Pericles and CJ morgan ?)

ClimateGate was real.. is real.. and will continue to be so.

As the wonderfully down to earth Weather chanel founder explained "You have a living.. bills to pay.. you want to do research.. you need grants.. the LAST thing you are going to do is bite the funding hand that feeds your life by trotting out politically incorrect results"

Now.. u know as well as I do that the science is not settled.

You also know there are huge gaps in the data.. "climategate"

But even if it was a fact.. how MUCH of a fact? dodgy sensors.. yada yada...

But let's say we have to DOOOOO something ?

Ok..Professor Joel Rogers (one of Obama's wise oracles) claims

"If we shut down EVery power station... took EVery car and truck off the road...in fact if we wrecked the whole economy.. it still would not bring us down to 60% CO2 emmissions"

So.... I guess were are doomed which ever way we go :) Are you prepared for that moment?

Just avoid voting Green or Labor of anyway which results in Carbon TRADING!

"I hate to burst your bubble there but such figures as you presented don't really mean a lot."

No indeed not AGIR - they mean nothing at all to the aliterate, the illiterate, the ignorant and those who bear false witness.

Incidentally, why don't you practise what you preach pastor?:

"As for the children of men, it is God's way of testing them and of showing that they are in themselves like beasts. For the lot man and of beast is one lot; the one dies as well as the other. Both have the same life-breath and man has no advantage over the beast, for all is vanity. Both go to the same place; both were made from dust and to the dust they both return. Who knows if the life-breath of the children of men goes upwards or the life-breath of the beast goes earthward?" Ecclesiates 16:18-21

Here's one for you, Boazy. Read it and weep:

<< Greens offer Gillard deal on carbon tax

Greens Leader Bob Brown says he has written to Prime Minister Julia Gillard offering a solution to the impasse on the emissions trading scheme.

Senator Brown says if Labor is re-elected the Greens would help the Government pass a carbon tax through the Senate within three months of polling day.

Senator Brown says the Greens deal would hold off on setting targets for emissions cuts until there is a global agreement on climate change, but would place a $23 per tonne price on carbon.

Senator Brown says the plan is similar to the idea put forward by the Government's former top adviser on climate change, Professor Ross Garnaut. >>

Full story at http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939558.htm

Sorry to let mere facts get in the way of a good "scream/yell/brain_hemorrhage(sic)".

Hi Prograg.... not sure what your hermeneutical angle on that pasaage is there.. mind elaborating ?

CJ.. I don't quite weep..but I do get motivated. Just out of curiosity.... do you really in your heart of hearts see 'carbon trading' as the solution ? Why not something much simpler like a small 'co contribution' by us all to facilitate a lower carbon footprint by supporting Solar renewables in Australia ?

Is it possible that the 'real' reason for the 'trading' bit is that it fits a much broader socio/political agenda ? Hmmmmm...

A price on carbon is ok... as long as it translates into something in and for Australia, and is real and fair.

If it translates into 'development projects in the 3rd world'..then sorry.. zero interest.

So.."yes" or "no" to Carbon "TRADING"?

Yes or no..to 'looking after our own carbon footprint in non commercial ways' ?

The problem is as real and as huge as climate science has been saying and yes, it's not hard to find wasteful and inappropriate projects and spending but these are almost entirely down to the failures of mainstream politics to face it head on with the seriousness it deserves. Instead of effective policy followed by real action they are giving us greenwash and they're hoping we'll buy it.
It's not those most most serious and most determined to deal with climate change that are responsible for that. I for one deplore the abuse and rorting of this very real issue by those who pretend to want action but actually want to line their own pockets.
Until the free market ideologies and politics find ways to adapt and produce solutions to this huge global challenge - instead of trying to disbelieve it away and blaming the loudest (often but not exclusively green) voices for climate, long term sustainability and the environment being an issue at all - ineffective and wasteful programs will almost certainly continue.