So, what the AGW lobby is trying to ask us to beleive, (via a very crude analogy) that by putting ONE CUPFULL of hot water into a cold bath will somehow end up with a hot bath!!

FROM #67: “We have an ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) running in Europe since 2004.” – yes but it is a mess: it has been hoodwinked by commercial pressure from the energy companies, and the WORST POLLUTERS have actually been given (FREE!!) carbon credit certificates, that in some cases are MORE than they need, and are selling these to other companies who DO need them (at a nice profit, courtesy of the EEC), who have admitted they overestimated and got it wrong.

By the way – this lunacy of planting a tree for “reducing the carbon footprint” – it is purely a commecial thing at ⡵0 a time – and many organisations are planting conifer trees (because they grow quick and produce a nice looking result), and NOT broad leaf trees that will properly absorb CO2 more efficiently (but are much slower to grow and mature).
In any event – my understanding is that the OCEANS can absorb much more than land-based masses like forests (See below)
ANOTHER MYTH:
The solar cycles (Solar energy increases and sunspot energy increases to the so-called “solar-constant” )can be ignored because it does not fit with “one” of the other measurements taken, that is the sea-temperature rises. What is ignored, is the fact that the specific heat of water is high compared with many other liquids, and even some metals. It is 4.186 Joules per CC of water. This means that the vast volume of the oceans acts as a great “heat-sink”, and will take several hundred years to react to the extra heat being sent to the earth from the sun. The out-of-phase graphs presented in a lot of material (including the over-hyped Al Gore piece, “An Inconvenient Truth”) are very persuasive, but do not bear out proper scientific scrutiny. Many scientists involved with climate studies (who are not dependent on government funding carrots to fudge the climate models) distance themselves from both the IPCC documents, and others promoting CO2 (man-made or otherwise) as the cause of “climate change”. It is known that many of the scientists who are trying to stay “true” to their science, have taken legal action to have their names removed from the “list” of scientists placed on key IPCC papers and reports. TDUK

You may have watched, or heard about, the television programme The Great Global Warming Swindle’, shown on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March. The programme put into question the prevailing consensus that carbon dioxide (CO2) released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

The issues raised in the programme should not be left unanswered. Cambridge Programme for Industry have therefore compiled, with the help of distinguished scientists from world renowned UK institutions, a short summary of what constitutes the present scientific consensus on the most important of these issues.

Internationally, this consensus is embodied in the assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s most authoritative voice on climate change. These assessments are prepared by thousands of scientists world-wide, on the basis of peer-reviewed science and by an open and transparent review process. The latest such assessment is being published this year. It confirms that human activities are responsible for current global warming and that dangerous climate change can only be avoided if urgent action is taken at global level.

More: http://www.medialens.org/downloads/GWS_Scientific_Responses.pdf

I guess you can plant trees on land which is not normally forested and if you can keep track and measure the CO2 absorbed, you can count these as credits. This is only allowed for trees planted after 1990.

This is really a scam. There is no evidence that trees actually store up Carbon on a long-term basis.

I know there are lots of studies which show this, but there is so much uncertainty regarding how individual trees and individual forests actually perform in the carbon cycle and, that under the Kyoto Protocol, forests, trees and vegetation are not counted in the numbers.

Perhaps that is because the forest mass of most countries is rising and the Kyoto advocates didn’t want anyone to have an easy out – claiming forest balance is increasing and they are meeting their Kyoto commitments that way.

For now, trees and vegetation are counted in the “Natural Sources” category. I’d sell Carbon Credits for the ocean if natural sources would count.

I wasn’t sure about your statement that ‘Stuntman Dave’ had finally got round to fitting his ‘stealth’ wind turbine to his house was true or not so I went and checked. The following link confirms you statement.

Stuntman Dave’s stealth wind turbine

I’m sure the neighbours are now delighted with the immediate reduction in the value of their properties noted here

I’m also sure that he’s very much looking forward to his 9p per week return on his investment. Details at the following link

‘Bane of the nuclear industry’, John Large’s wind turbine folly

I’m sure though that he (JL) will be more than able to offset the poor return from his wind turbine by the income he receives from Greenpeace to ensure that we don’t build anymore of those nasty nuclear power stations in the UK. Just as well as otherwise there wouldn’t be any room left for the rest of us to get our slice of the 9p per week ROI that domestic wind turbine generation opportunity presents to us all in the UK.

Now how does that saying go? ‘A fool and his money are easily parted…’

KevinUK

A few more thoughts (sorry not very scientific) on wind and carbon trading.

The UK government is obsessed with wind power and is trying to build a giant farm in the Thames Estuary.Wind farms are heaviliy subsidised. Indeed ‘Dave’ Cameron, leader of the conservative opposition and a devout AGWer has a pointless wind turbine on his house. In the UK, the greens tends to support windfarms and the main opposition is from locals who don’t want their areas of outstanding natural beauty despoiled by the farms. The greens don’t see it in that way of course.

Yet a relatively independent report published here a few months ago said that average power generation was less than 30% of capacity. Despite comments from Curious above, it cannot make sense to base power supply on such waste. The problem in the UK is that where the wind blows with some consistency, for example the North of Scotland, tends to be miles from population. Thus expensive and wasteful inter-connectors are needed. Wind might work in some places but not in the UK.

Carbon Trading

Apart from the fact that it may be based entirely on a false premise – that CO2 causes AGW there are many obvious flaws.

In the EU regime, various emitters are given a ‘free’ allocation of CCs. Has this allocation been ‘fair’? Of course not. It has been done by the EU which means that it is a politicised process subject to all the usual ‘pork barrel’ practices.

Secondly, the system is ultimately designed to penalise the heaviest emitters, e.g. power generation and heavy industry such as cement manufacture whilst ignoring their utility. In the end, it is people who are the ultimate consumers and therefore emitters but the cost is hidden as a business tax, a favourite of our Chancellor rather than the polictically unpalletable direct tax on carbon generating behaviour, for example getting up from bed, having a wash and going to work.

Third any trading system that does not include India and China, some hope, is pointless.

Fourth, the idea is for people that don’t need their credits – poor Africans- to sell them to those that do -evil Western business. Thus another get rish quick opportunity for African despots at the expesne of their people.

In theory a market based system should reward ‘good’ activity and punish bad. But such a system is never likley to survive horse-trading between the main emitters.

Solar panels

A postscript. Panels are expensive. Western aid goes mainly, in Africa, to agents of the state and thus most of the Aid is stolen, making the panels even more expensive. And if they break down , they can’t afford the maintenance. And at night, there is no alternative power source unless of course they use ‘cheap’ car batteries.

Regards

Paul