Is global AGW a scam like credit default swaps?

[brantc]

From Global Research;

"As I have previously shown, speculative derivatives (especially credit default swaps) are a primary cause of the economic crisis.

And I have pointed out that (1) the giant banks will make a killing on carbon trading, (2) while the leading scientist crusading against global warming says it won't work, and (3) there is a very high probability of massive fraud and insider trading in the carbon trading markets.

Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives:

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.

[Blythe] Masters says banks must be allowed to lead the way if a mandatory carbon-trading system is going to help save the planet at the lowest possible cost. And derivatives related to carbon must be part of the mix, she says. Derivatives are securities whose value is derived from the value of an underlying commodity -- in this case, CO2 and other greenhouse gases...

Who is Blythe Masters?

She is the JP Morgan employee who invented credit default swaps, and is now heading JPM's carbon trading efforts. As Bloomberg notes (this and all remaining quotes are from the above-linked Bloomberg article):

Masters, 40, oversees the New York bank’s environmental businesses as the firm’s global head of commodities...

As a young London banker in the early 1990s, Masters was part of JPMorgan’s team developing ideas for transferring risk to third parties. She went on to manage credit risk for JPMorgan’s investment bank.

Among the credit derivatives that grew from the bank’s early efforts was the credit-default swap."
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16449

 

[blutoski]

This is an [appeal to consequences] and possibly also an attempt to [poison the well]. Both are [red herrings].

To determine whether AGW is true or not ("a scam" or not) it is necessary to examine the evidence regarding AGW specifically, rather than asking whether some business sectors may benefit.

 

[Tubbythin]

This is an [appeal to consequences] and possibly also an attempt to [poison the well]. Both are [red herrings].

To determine whether AGW is true or not ("a scam" or not) it is necessary to examine the evidence regarding AGW specifically, rather than asking whether some business sectors may benefit.

Yes. The title of the thread seems to bear no resemblance to the content of the OP.

 

[Reality Check]

This thread needs to be moved to the Economics section. It has nothing to do with science.

 

[blutoski]

Yes. The title of the thread seems to bear no resemblance to the content of the OP.

Understood. I was assuming the poster was coherent and that he was implying that identifying financial conflict of interest overrules climatology facts.

 

[Dancing David]

Considering carbon trading is an economic control suggested by those who originally denied AGW it is an irony.

 

[plumjam]

Yes. The title of the thread seems to bear no resemblance to the content of the OP.

Some truth in what you say.
Perhaps a better title would be something like: "Is the broad political and mainstream media enthusiasm for the AGW case largely attributable to the direct and indirect profits which will accrue to the kind of people who move in these circles, due to this being part of a scam of the nature of credit default swaps?"

Bit long for a thread title, though.

If you're creating a whole new credit/debit system that's supported by international legal enforceability, and thus able to get its claws on pretty much every type of economic activity, that's like creating a whole new parallel money system.

Of course that's going to be of enormous benefit to the founders, manipulators and enforcers of such a system.

In comparison, something like big oil is small beer. (Yet, in big oil's favour, at least that industry is producing something of currently vital use and benefit to society - keeping us warm, getting us to work, powering productive industry..etc.. whereas carbon credit trading is about as useful to the average person as were credit default swaps i.e. of enormously negative usefulness).

So, during the period of the possible birth of a parallel global legally enforceable money system it should not be of any surprise to self-identifying skeptics that in such a context there will be a lot of privileged economic, political and media pressure trying to push the scientific debate in a particular direction, complete with funding and the rest of it.

And, sorry, but if anyone thinks these kinds of people are genuinely concerned about humanity and the future of the planet, that's just hopelessly naive.
How many sick statistics do we have to hear about how easy it would be for, say, the G8 to eradicate several of the World's worst diseases, and even bring Africa as a whole up to a decent subsistence level (the kind we've been hearing for decades), before you realise these politicians are almost all self-interested types?

They're suddenly worried about the future of the planet?
Pull the other one.

 

[Tubbythin]

Some truth in what you say.
Perhaps a better title would be something like: "Is the broad political and mainstream media enthusiasm for the AGW case largely attributable to the direct and indirect profits which will accrue to the kind of people who move in these circles, due to this being part of a scam of the nature of credit default swaps?"

Bit long for a thread title, though.

Agreed. "Is carbon trading a scam" would have done though. And would make it obvious to anyone and everyone that this wasn't a science thread and therefore shouldn't be on the science forum.

If you're creating a whole new credit/debit system that's supported by international legal enforceability, and thus able to get it's claws on pretty much every type of economic activity, that's like creating a whole new parallel money system.

Of course that's going to be of enormous benefit to the founders, manipulators and enforcers of such a system.

In comparison, something like big oil is small beer. (Yet, in big oil's favour, at least that industry is producing something of currently vital use and benefit to society - keeping us warm, getting us to work, powering productive industry..etc.. whereas carbon credit trading is about as useful to the average person as were credit default swaps i.e. of enormously negative usefulness).

So, during the period of the possible birth of a parallel global legally enforceable money system it should not be of any surprise to self-identifying skeptics that in such a context there will be a lot of privileged economic, political and media pressure trying to push the scientific debate in a particular direction, complete with funding and the rest of it.

And, sorry, but if anyone thinks these kinds of people are genuinely concerned about humanity and the future of the planet, that's just hopelessly naive.
How many sick statistics do we have to hear about how easy it would be for, say, the G8 to eradicate several of the World's worst diseases, and even bring Africa as a whole up to a decent subsistence level (the kind we've been hearing for decades), before you realise these politicians are almost all self-interested types?

They're suddenly worried about the future of the planet?
Pull the other one.

Right or otherwise this has nothing to do with science.

 

[blutoski]

Nominated to be moved to politics.

 

[plumjam]

Agreed. "Is carbon trading a scam" would have done though. And would make it obvious to anyone and everyone that this wasn't a science thread and therefore shouldn't be on the science forum.


Right or otherwise this has nothing to do with science.

And then we have Freedom of Information requests being denied/obfuscated/resisted by those few people with access to the data upon which the parallel money-system global policy is about to be founded...
... not to mention the 'scientists' stated desires to hide climate trends that do not fit with what would be most beneficial to themselves (more funding) or their sponsors (carbon-shenanigans global financial legislation).

Skeptics should be wondering about all this.
Thankfully, about half a dozen here are at least putting their heads above the parapet (and being likened to flat-earthers, holocaust deniers etc.. for it).
In fifteen years their position will be vindicated, or my Uncle's a pot plant

 

[scratchy]

Great - another 'just asking, not going to accept any answers' thread. We need more of these.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

And then we have Freedom of Information requests being denied/obfuscated/resisted by those few people with access to the data upon which the parallel money-system global policy is about to be founded...
... not to mention the 'scientists' stated desires to hide climate trends that do not fit with what would be most beneficial to themselves (more funding) or their sponsors (carbon-shenanigans global financial legislation).

Skeptics should be wondering about all this.
Thankfully, about half a dozen here are at least putting their heads above the parapet (and being likened to flat-earthers, holocaust deniers etc.. for it).
In fifteen years their position will be vindicated, or my Uncle's a pot plant

Flob a dob.

 

[BenBurch]

Conspiracy Theory...

Another in the series.

 

[Tricky]

Moving this thread to Conspiracy Theories. Not sure if that is the correct forum, but Science it is not.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[plumjam]

How about economics, business and finance?
Putting it in Conspiracy Theories appears like wanting to decide the question by fiat.

Insert car joke below.

 

[varwoche]

And then we have Freedom of Information requests being denied/obfuscated/resisted by those few people with access to the data upon which the parallel money-system global policy is about to be founded...
... not to mention the 'scientists' stated desires to hide climate trends that do not fit with what would be most beneficial to themselves (more funding) or their sponsors (carbon-shenanigans global financial legislation).

Skeptics should be wondering about all this.
Thankfully, about half a dozen here are at least putting their heads above the parapet (and being likened to flat-earthers, holocaust deniers etc.. for it).
In fifteen years their position will be vindicated, or my Uncle's a pot plant

Hasty generalization : this post
pimple : Mt. Everest

 

[Howie Felterbush]

snip
So, during the period of the possible birth of a parallel global legally enforceable money system it should not be of any surprise to self-identifying skeptics that in such a context there will be a lot of privileged economic, political and media pressure trying to push the scientific debate in a particular direction, complete with funding and the rest of it.
snizzip

Not to worry, Mr. Jam. I brought up a similar point in another thread and was assured by several critical-thinking skeptics that I was an idiot; these scientists are doing this all out of the kindness of their hearts. Money is the furthest thing from their minds. Misrepresent data for filthy lucre? Heaven forbid!

Mind you, I was merely pointing out that there was an awful lot of money involved, and that this may color some people's research. I made absolutely no point about anthropogenic climate change being true or not, but I was still tarred with the idiot brush. As far as the AGW religious types are concerned, I'm a denier, pure and simple, even though I deny nothing. You will receive the same treatment, as did RandFan and some others.

Now, don't you feel better?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

respectful snip... I made absolutely no point about anthropogenic climate change being true or not, but I was still tarred with the idiot brush. As far as the AGW religious types are concerned, I'm a denier, pure and simple, even though I deny nothing. You will receive the same treatment, as did RandFan and some others.

Now, don't you feel better?

That was me too when I first joined.
I remain skeptical of the A in AGW, but many 'warmers' says I am a 'denier' and conspiracy theorist. So be it, no point in restating my case over and over.
Now I learn whilst I provoke, it's more comfortable (and fun) for me that way than trying to seem reasonable; I would get the same response either way.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

That was me too when I first joined.
I remain skeptical of the A in AGW, but many 'warmers' says I am a 'denier' and conspiracy theorist. So be it, no point in restating my case over and over.
Now I learn whilst I provoke, it's more comfortable (and fun) for me that way than trying to seem reasonable; I would get the same response either way.

Might as well get this out of the way and get my beating too...

I'm generally skeptical about the extent of man's role in global warming since there have been periods in Earth's history where natural changes in the climate have resulted in much higher average temperatures. That doesn't mean I believe man has NO impact or at least some indirect impacts though the impact we have on wildlife habitats, but I'm not out there with Al Gore on the issue.

I don't think some of the AGW emails helped in the underlying case that some scientists are making though either. If there was any forgery or manipulation of data it hurts the public's view of their credibility; not something you want happening when you're making a case that anthropogenic climate change is endangering everybody

 

[varwoche]

That was me too when I first joined.
I remain skeptical of the A in AGW, but many 'warmers' says I am a 'denier' and conspiracy theorist. So be it, no point in restating my case over and over.

All readers have to go by are your posts. And those posts portray an anti-science bent and a notable degree of evasiveness.

Now I learn whilst I provoke, it's more comfortable (and fun) for me that way than trying to seem reasonable; I would get the same response either way.

While it's true that posters get testy, this impresses me as post hoc rationalization for the fact that you've repeatedly had your ass handed to you due to the misrepresentations you constantly foist, and for refusing to backup your claims.

But even if I'm wrong, you're still admitting to intentionally posting in an unreasonable fashion -- trolling in essence. I hold this manner of posting in very low regard, and your incessant whining about the responses you provoke doesn't help much. If you choose to troll -- choose to post unreasonably -- you should take responsibility for the consequences.