Here's the nightmare I was warning of. Today Obama sidesteps legislation with the Administrationâs Endangerment Finding that will lead to a wave of new regulations and bureaucracy, wreak havoc on the American economy destroying millions of jobs, and force consumers to pay more for electricity and gasoline. This is major news for every citizen but especially investors... and how many on ET are aware of it? This is why they will win.
Now, Bloomberg notes that the carbon trading scheme will be centered around derivatives: [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.
Relax. MaObama is all set to tax, spend and regulate us back to true prosperity. He even said it again today (the "spend" part). Forget all that stuff about hard work, saving, producing goods & services people actually want, etc. That's so pre-21st Century.
Will the Dow Jones be a higher number in 20 years from now than it is today? Will it be higher in two weeks? Sometimes it's easier to see a trend over 20 years than two weeks.
Well as you are so intelligent why don't you explain the science of why G.W. is a complete lie MKTrader? Go on I am waiting. In the meantime I think you will find all the facts in these videos even you must see this? But again your mind is made up and that's about that isn't it? Duped? LOL I lsten to the science and the facts. do you? I know you don but I had to ask. Why don't you give me an alternative factual lesson on why G.W. is not man made? Not your opinion...ok? That's worth about as much as your trading account. What I am beginning to think is if the Government was actually A.G.W. many on here would be for man made G.W. You tell us not to be duped. It actually smaks of "do not listen to the politicians what-ever they say." If they say white think black. We listen to the science and the facts you spout of opinions and hot air. Unbelievable. It shows once your mind is made up it's made up and no facts/science is going to change your mind? Or is it simply becasue of the money? You absolutely hate the fact of big Government taxing more....so you attack the very thought of man made G.W.ing? That's how it looks from here. Again, this is by far the best explnanation of man made G.W.ing and the facts I have ever some across. Amazing. Yet you still refuse to even ackowledge it. I rest my case. Your insulting comments about I.Q. show how low and desperate you people will stoop in an arguement, especailly when you can see you are losing it. Grow up and start showing us some science and facts for once. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_A...laynext_from=PL ------------------------------------------------ Perhaps ET should force posters to pass a 5th-grade level grammar test and score 75+ on an IQ test before posting. It's no wonder why some are so easily duped...
3 facts: 1) Th earth is warming up. Yeah I know the past 8 years it has cooled about 0.1C (A.G.W. throw a party) Yet the trend for the past 200+ is without adoubt UP 2) CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat thus causing warming 3) Man is pumping out billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere every year. So unless you dispute one of these above facts you have to come to the conclusion of Man Made G.W.? I mean it's really finny that some of the A.G.W. talk of "increased cloud cover," "increase solar activity" as to the reason of global warming. Both of which have been proven not to be the case. I have stil lnot heard of another scientific, valid reason for the earth warming. Lots of opinion but what about some facts?
I think it is on the global warming alarmists to prove it is man made. Lets prove it before entire economies need to change to accommodate the warm fuzzy feelings lefties get when doing something for the environment. But we can all change global warming all we need to do is change our light bulbs.
HEAT OF THE MOMENT December 08, 2009 Famous weather scientist: Climategate 'tip of iceberg' 'Conspiracy would become manifest' if all climate research e-mails unveiled The Colorado scientist described by the Washington Post as "the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" says the "ClimateGate" e-mails from the United Kingdom that revealed possible data manipulation are evidence of a conspiracy among "warmists," those who believe man's actions are triggering possibly catastrophic climate change. "The recent 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the UK University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the last 25 years," said Colorado State University's Dr. William Gray. His are the annual hurricane forecasts that are the standard for weather prognostications. His work pioneered the science of forecasting hurricanes and he has served as weather forecaster for the United States Air Force. He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at CSU and heads the school's Department of Atmospheric Sciences Tropical Meteorology Project... Gray said, "This conspiracy would become much more manifest if all the e-mails of the publically funded climate research groups of the U.S. and of foreign governments were ever made public." ... He said he probably would have been "concerned" over the possibility people are causing serious global climate degradation "had I not devoted my entire career of over half-a-century to the study and foreasting of meteorological and climate events." "There has been an unrelenting quarter century of one-sided indoctrination of the western world by the media and by various scientists and governments concerning a coming carbon dioxide ⦠induced global warming disaster," he said. "These warming scenarios have been orchestrated by a combination of environmentalists, vested interest scientists wanting larger federal grants and publicity, the media which profits from doomsday scenario reporting, governmental bureaucrats who want more power over our lives, and socialists who want to level-out global living standards. "These many alarmist groups appear to have little concern over whether their global warming prognostications are accurate, however. And they most certainly are not. The alarmists believe they will be able to scare enough of our citizens into believing their propaganda that the public will be willing to follow their advice on future energy usage and agree to a lowering of their standard of living in the name of climate salvation." He said there still remains to be an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature, and such models as have been used are flawed. He cited a global warming of about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that's "not a consequence of human activities." "The disastrous economic consequences of restricting CO2 emissions from the present by as much as 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 (as being proposed in Copenhagen) have yet to be digested by the general public. Such CO2 output decreases would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate," he said... He's long described global warming as a hoax, telling the Post three years ago, "I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." ... U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, has urged members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of nearly 32,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s, who believe humans likely have little or nothing to do with any "global warming." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118432
Global cooling documented in last decade Contradicts data released at Copenhagen climate summit December 08, 2009 The mainstream media is reporting the World Meteorological Organization's assessment of global average temperatures asserting this decade is "the warmest on record," without mentioning the WMO data actually documents the United States and Canada experienced cooler-than-average conditions since 2000. The reports circulating from the U.N.'s climate summit in Copenhagen also don't mention scientific climate data that suggest the globe has cooled in the last 10 years. Data from the U.S. National Climate Data Center indicate temperatures in the U.S. have cooled over the last decade at a rate that projects to a decline of 7.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. U.N. scientist predicts decade of global cooling Global warming alarmists were thrown into disarray last September at the U.N.'s world climate conference when a noted global warming scientist presented data showing the earth has not warmed for nearly a decade and likely is entering "one or two decades during which temperatures cool." Mojib Latif, a climate physicist at the Liebniz Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of Kiel in Germany and a lead author for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, produced evidence predicting two decades of natural global cooling caused by cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation. "I'm not one of the skeptics," Latif has affirmed. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=118346
Copenhagen climate summit: Blindfolds are hiding the crucial issues at Copenhagen Wednesday 09 December 2009 But as more and more eminent scientists have recently been pointing out, the only reason why the computer models predict that rising CO2 must cause temperatures to rise is that this is what they were programmed to show. What world-ranking physicists such as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT and Professor Will Happer of Princeton have been arguing is that the models are fatally flawed because they do not take proper account of all sorts of other factors which play a key part in shaping the worldâs climate - such as shifts in ocean currents, the effects of magnetic activity on the sun and the âfeedbackâ from clouds and water vapour, far and away the most important greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, which counteracts any impact from the rise in CO2. The greatest ally this growing army of âscepticalâ scientists can point to is what has actually been happening to the climate in recent years. No one can predict with certainty where temperatures will be in 100 years time, But the one thing that is indisputable is that, as CO2 levels continue to rise, the trend in global temperatures has not recently been rising as the computer models predicted, but has been flattening out and even dropping. In other words, it becomes increasingly clear that the models were wrong - because their programming was biased according to a theory which now looks ever more questionable. Yet it is on their projections that the world is now faced with by far the most expensive set of measures ever proposed by politicians in history. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...Copenhagen-are-hiding-the-crucial-issues.html more... Britain must cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by a staggering 80 percent or more. Not a single one of the 463 MPs who nodded through the Climate Change Act, with only three voting against, could have begun to explain in practical terms how this target could be met. Short of an as-yet undreamed of technological revolution, this could not possibly be achieved without closing down not just most of our transport system and electricity supplies but virtually all of our current economic activity. What is being proposed at Copenhagen is that not dissimilar measures should be imposed on every country in the developed world, threatening to transform our existing way of life out of all recognition... The Western nations want everyone to sign up to crippling targets for reducing their CO2 emissions (China having already overtaken the US as the worldâs biggest emitter). But the developing countries argue that, since the âCO2 problemâ is historically all our fault, as the countries which led the way to industrialisation, there is no way they can agree to any binding targets until they have been allowed to catch up economically with the West. The best they can offer is that, in order to bribe them to make at least token gestures towards curbing their own carbon emissions, we in the developed countries should pay them hundreds of billions of dollars a year - at the very moment when we ourselves are accepting targets designed to make our own economies progressively very much less productive. In other words, as we are faced with yet another colossal bill, their own economies will continue to forge ahead, pouring out so much CO2 that the global level will almost certainly continue to rise http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...Copenhagen-are-hiding-the-crucial-issues.html