climate change industry - dodgy

The Bosscp · June 2007

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093836,00.html

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
i.e., the whole climate change industry, and yes I do mean industry, is dodgy.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world, according to UN paperwork, an unpublished expert report and alarming feedback from projects on the ground.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
i.e., the whole process of tackling climate change is actually just a big money-making scam. Therefore, the fact that 'carbon offsets' is such a big money maker suggests that's why the 'problem' was invented in the first place:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
submitting a report containing remarks such as "we must check this before we submit the report"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Other errors are said to be more serious, including conjuring up numbers when projects on the ground failed to provide them"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Mr Michaelowa found evidence of projects supplying false information"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> That says it all, really.

This whole 'carbon offset' thing is basically just a way of transforming the notion of 'climate change' into a money-making industry by inventing what is basically a currency called 'carbon credits'.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2093836,00.html

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
i.e., the whole climate change industry, and yes I do mean industry, is dodgy.

...

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Bonj, did you ever do comprehension exercises in school?

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world, according to UN paperwork, an unpublished expert report and alarming feedback from projects on the ground.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
i.e., the whole process of tackling climate change is actually just a big money-making scam. Therefore, the fact that 'carbon offsets' is such a big money maker suggests that's why the 'problem' was invented in the first place:
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It seems not.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

The Bosscp · June 2007

Got any proper arguments, or are you too busy riding along on your train eating all the gravy?

This is massive, this is the exact thing the greens DIDN'T want to be ousted. This is the revelation that could start the whole thing crumbling.

You can stand there like Comical Ali claiming you're still winning the climate change propoganda war, but the evidence that it's all a load of baloney is mounting up higher than an eastern european landfill site.
You need to get down off your climate change high horse, flower, and admit the truth. The writing is on the wall, this is the beginning of the end for the climatists.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

It seems not.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, it seems so. And anyway since when did you become such an expert on climate change, I thought speedophiles and shared space were more your cup of tea.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Got any proper arguments, or are you too busy riding along on your train eating all the gravy?

This is massive, this is the exact thing the greens DIDN'T want to be ousted. This is the revelation that could start the whole thing crumbling.

You can stand there like Comical Ali claiming you're still winning the climate change propoganda war, but the evidence that it's all a load of baloney is mounting up higher than an eastern european landfill site.
You need to get down off your climate change high horse, flower, and admit the truth. The writing is on the wall, this is the beginning of the end for the climatists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed, you didn't, did you...

Now, as you've clearly read the article so thoroughly, perhaps you could help us by pointing to the bit that says the IPCC got it wrong?

Simon L2 · June 2007

Bonj - I'm so pleased with my post of this afternoon, that I'm going to repeat part of it

What's striking about your one-pony tail campaign is that nobody on this forum has, as far as I can remember, been convinced by one of your points. Not one. Not ever. And you don't have to look far, even in the somewhat rarified atmosphere in Sopabox (or the more scholarly environs 'over the road') to see individuals coming to a different understanding of the world on the basis of some fresh insight offered by another. Perhaps you should ponder your complete lack of success and ask yourself whether you are a profoundly unpersuasive person, or whether you simply have nothing useful or interesting to say. It could be one, or, on the other hand, it could be the other. Or, possibly, it could be both.

You've done it again - made National Enquirer style headlines out of a non-sequiter. Why not give up? You're failing at every twist and turn. Batting your head against a brick wall for no purpose.

The Bosscp · June 2007

Your problem is you're placing all your eggs in one basket. No matter what revalations come out, no matter which senior climatists are being discredited, no matter how much the climate change industry is falling down around its ears, you keep rattling off the same old mantra of "where's the proof the IPCC got it wrong?"

Well the circumstantial evidence here is that there's a very strong motive. The only reason the IPCC hasn't been proved wrong is not that it isn't wrong, but that so much money has been spent in making an apparently watertight argument for climate change - and when you see how much they've got to gain from it, you can see why they did.

The IPCC hasn't even been mentioned here, it's about the 'solution to climate change' as opposed to the proof (or non-proof, as it may be) that it exists in the first place, but yet you still trot out the same old mantra. There's no room in this debate for single-mantra participants, so please - try moving away from propping up the only cornerstone of your weak argument and see if it doesn't collapse. I dare you.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Simon L2

Bonj - I'm so pleased with my post of this afternoon, that I'm going to repeat part of it

What's striking about your one-pony tail campaign is that nobody on this forum has, as far as I can remember, been convinced by one of your points. Not one. Not ever. And you don't have to look far, even in the somewhat rarified atmosphere in Sopabox (or the more scholarly environs 'over the road') to see individuals coming to a different understanding of the world on the basis of some fresh insight offered by another. Perhaps you should ponder your complete lack of success and ask yourself whether you are a profoundly unpersuasive person, or whether you simply have nothing useful or interesting to say. It could be one, or, on the other hand, it could be the other. Or, possibly, it could be both.

You've done it again - made National Enquirer style headlines out of a non-sequiter. Why not give up? You're failing at every twist and turn. Batting your head against a brick wall for no purpose.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well if you're so convinced of my failure to influence anybody, what are you getting so het up about it for? Your response strikes me as that of someone who's afraid of the fact that this is going to convince people that the ever-growing army of climate-change sceptics are right.

Pingucp · June 2007

Incompetent and/or fraudulent business practices are not evidence against climate change.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>Wear the fox hat.
Cols d'cosse</center>

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
...

The IPCC hasn't even been mentioned here, it's about the 'solution to climate change' as opposed to the proof (or non-proof, as it may be) that it exists in the first place, but yet you still trot out the same old mantra. There's no room in this debate for single-mantra participants, so please - try moving away from propping up the only cornerstone of your weak argument and see if it doesn't collapse. I dare you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hah hah hah. You are a buffoon aren't you. So you admit the article isn't anything to do with the science of climate change. Next you are going to have to admit that the article isn't even about 'solutions' to climate change in general (of which there are of course, very very many), the article is specifically about the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It isn't about anything else is it bonjy? So you can't draw conclusions about anything else then can you? 0/10 for comprehension. If you didn't do them in school, then we'll just have to start teaching you here.

And as for the bit in bold-! That, Sir, is not a glass house you of all people should be throwing stones at!

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pingu

Incompetent and/or fraudulent business practices are not evidence against climate change.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It might not be concrete tangible evidence that it has DEFINITELY been made up, but the evidence that corrupt profiteering has been going on on the back of it gives a lot more credence to the fact that it's been exaggerated.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
...

The IPCC hasn't even been mentioned here, it's about the 'solution to climate change' as opposed to the proof (or non-proof, as it may be) that it exists in the first place, but yet you still trot out the same old mantra. There's no room in this debate for single-mantra participants, so please - try moving away from propping up the only cornerstone of your weak argument and see if it doesn't collapse. I dare you.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hah hah hah. You are a buffoon aren't you. So you admit the article isn't anything to do with the science of climate change. Next you are going to have to admit that the article isn't even about 'solutions' to climate change in general (of which there are of course, very very many), the article is specifically about the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). It isn't about anything else is it bonjy? So you can't draw conclusions about anything else then can you? 0/10 for comprehension. If you didn't do them in school, then we'll just have to start teaching you here.

And as for the bit in bold-! That, Sir, is not a glass house you of all people should be throwing stones at!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

you can't wriggle out of the fact that you're wrong by trying to narrow it down and pigeon-hole the corruption onto a single aspect of climate change which you then try to falsely associate with only an apparently infinetessimally small aspect of the whole sorry debacle.
This is evidence first and foremost that climatism IS an industry, and just as importantly that that industry is a corrupt one.

Simon L2 · June 2007

no, Bonj, I'm taking some pleasure, albeit of an uncharitable nature, of swatting a fool. That's you. I have to suffer fools in my working life; being unkind to you is a form of recreation.

Tell you what - why don't you set yourself a challenge? Get someone to write something like 'you know what Bonj I hadn't thought of it like that - thankyou' or 'you've got a point there, Bonj'. Surprise us.

And as for the ever-growing army - where? Really. Fox News? Simoncp, the man with the child abuse theory? Exxon employees? Where?

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

i.e., the whole process of tackling climate change is actually just a big money-making scam. Therefore, the fact that 'carbon offsets' is such a big money maker suggests that's why the 'problem' was invented in the first place:

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

although I have to confess, that even by the addled standards you've previously set this is comfortably in a class of its own. What made you write such tosh? What basic failure of comprehension led you to conclude this from the article we both read? It's astounding. The word schmuck might just have been invented for you.

Pingucp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pingu

Incompetent and/or fraudulent business practices are not evidence against climate change.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It might not be concrete tangible evidence that it has DEFINITELY been made up, but the evidence that corrupt profiteering has been going on on the back of it gives a lot more credence to the fact that it's been exaggerated.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Only to you. Not to people living in the real non-conspiracy laden world.

<hr noshade size="1"><center>Wear the fox hat.
Cols d'cosse</center>

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"conjuring up numbers when projects on the ground failed to provide them"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"evidence of projects supplying false information which was then accepted by the companies who were supposed to check it"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not my words.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

It seems not.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, it seems so. And anyway since when did you become such an expert on climate change, I thought speedophiles and shared space were more your cup of tea.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I have never professed to be an expert on anything. Though I am pretty good at pointing out when someone's argument doesn't justify what they are trying to claim.

__________________________________________________________
Road Safety Expert

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"conjuring up numbers when projects on the ground failed to provide them"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"evidence of projects supplying false information which was then accepted by the companies who were supposed to check it"<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not my words.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And not the conclusion you drew either! Still 0/10 for comprehension I'm afraid.

Here's another article about crime and corruption (very worrying) with a climate change link:

Biofuel gangs kill for green profits

As you've clearly time on your hands this evening, be a good chap and take a read, then come back and tell us what you think the problem is and who is to blame.

The Bosscp · June 2007

Problem: Illegal land grabbing and the lengths gone to to accomplish it
Primary blame: Corrupt / criminal gangs desparate to profit from the branch of the climate change industry associated with contributing to the 'solution' by providing alternative fuels
Secondary blame: The doom-mongering greens proclaiming the acuteness of the need for such alternative fuels, providing the industry in the first place.

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Problem: Illegal land grabbing and the lengths gone to to accomplish it
Primary blame: Corrupt / criminal gangs desparate to profit from the branch of the climate change industry associated with contributing to the 'solution' by providing alternative fuels
Secondary blame: The doom-mongering greens proclaiming the acuteness of the need for such alternative fuels, providing the industry in the first place.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Doom mongering greens like these ones perhaps?.. oh.

George Monbiot

www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

Greenpeace

Friend of the Earth

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

I have never professed to be an expert on anything. Though I am pretty good at pointing out when someone's argument doesn't justify what they are trying to claim.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is that what the rest of us more modestly call disagreeing with someone?

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Problem: Illegal land grabbing and the lengths gone to to accomplish it
Primary blame: Corrupt / criminal gangs desparate to profit from the branch of the climate change industry associated with contributing to the 'solution' by providing alternative fuels
Secondary blame: The doom-mongering greens proclaiming the acuteness of the need for such alternative fuels, providing the industry in the first place.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Doom mongering greens like these ones perhaps?.. oh.

George Monbiot

www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

Greenpeace

Friend of the Earth

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yep. All doom-mongering greens. And your point is?

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Problem: Illegal land grabbing and the lengths gone to to accomplish it
Primary blame: Corrupt / criminal gangs desparate to profit from the branch of the climate change industry associated with contributing to the 'solution' by providing alternative fuels
Secondary blame: The doom-mongering greens proclaiming the acuteness of the need for such alternative fuels, providing the industry in the first place.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Doom mongering greens like these ones perhaps?.. oh.

George Monbiot

www.biofuelwatch.org.uk

Greenpeace

Friend of the Earth

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yep. All doom-mongering greens. And your point is?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bonj, did you look at the links before you engaged your neurone? Obviously not, or else you'd have realised that your post looks rather silly. Mind you, coming from someone who thinks bacteria are viruses and vice versa, we shouldn't be surprised.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Gary Askwith · June 2007

We need a stronger concoction folks [xx(][xx(]

[url][/url]http://www.smallpotatoesmusic.com/Graphics/corry.JPG[url][/url]

[url][/url]http://www.luxor.nl/Dumb & Dumber.jpg[url][/url]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

papercorn2000 · June 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6716003.stm

There we go, proof that planes can't actually fly. Or something.

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by papercorn2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6716003.stm

There we go, proof that planes can't actually fly. Or something.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I don't think it's quite the same thing, as the first pic clearly shows a plane blatantly in the act of, well, flying.

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

Bonj, did you look at the links before you engaged your neurone? Obviously not, or else you'd have realised that your post looks rather silly. Mind you, coming from someone who thinks bacteria are viruses and vice versa, we shouldn't be surprised.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yet more attempts at discreditation, without any actual substantive argument against what's been published.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Bonj - if you post an argument that actually makes sense and is worth engaging people will take you seriously. If you do not, you will get contempt.

Do you really not know why you are not being taken seriously in this case, or do you need it explaining to you?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

Bonj - if you post an argument that actually makes sense and is worth engaging people will take you seriously. If you do not, you will get contempt.

Do you really not know why you are not being taken seriously in this case, or do you need it explaining to you?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I'm not making an argumemt though, I'm simply interpreting what's been published in the guardian. Their words, not mine. And besides, that's not true at all. People like you hold your nose up and don't take anything even vaguely seriously if it's got a whiff of climate scepticism, you refuse to even admit that there could possibly be an argument against what you already know to be true.
I'm not arguing with YOU, since there's very little point in doing so as you've already made up your mind - I'm simply pointing out an article to those that aren't too smug and closed-minded to think about the possibility of learning something new and changing their opinion about it.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
I'm not making an argumemt though, I'm simply interpreting what's been published in the guardian. Their words, not mine.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

okay - here we go:

'Interpreting' in this case means infering an entirely different argument from that which is actually presented in the article. Mjones has already explained to you what it is about... you are not 'repeating' or 'reporting', which would mean that what you were saying what the the article was saying.

The article does not mean what you claim it does at all. It is about the way in which mechanisms based on international agreements to deal with climate change have not worked in the way they were intended and have allowed opportunities for corruption and shoddy practice. So far so unsuprising.

The Kyoto protocol in itself is a massive and unfortunate compromise which was designed to achieve as much international agreement as possible on a subject against which vast vested interested were stacked. Neither it, no the mechanism derived from it, say anything about the science or reality of climate change, no about 'greens' or environmentalists (who are generally scathing about Kyoto and the CDM, although they recognise it is the only game in town) only about the way in which states act when confronted by such things... in other words, this is about politics and economics.

I will repeat for you again, because you continually make this flawed style of argument: you cannot read backwards from political or economic responses to scientific findings anything about the science. The effectiveness of the CDM says nothing about the IPCC or the work of climate scientists. It would be like arguing that the smoking ban in the UK in 2007 proves that scientists who discovered the link between smkoing and cancer in the 1950s were involved in a massive web of conspiracy with anti-smoking campaigners to curtail freedom. You cannot construct a conspiracy theory in retrospect as a serious argument...

You are building a house on sand, putting your cart before your horse and many other crimes against metaphor....

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

climate change industry - dodgy

Comments

Categories