Goldman Strikes Again: Did A Probe Into "Global Warming" Fraud Cost A Prime Minister's Job

Tyler Durden's picture

When Tony Abbott became Australia's prime minister in September 2013, the chain of events that would prematurely end his tenure may already have been in motion: just a few months later China would order its out of control shadow banking system to put on hold its debt issuance machinery, which as we reported a year ago, ground to a complete stop around November 2014 (which also was the explanation for the dramatic slowdown in the US economy over the winter as the collapse in China's Total Social Financing growth sent a deflationary ripple effect around the globe), which - as we warned at the time - would have dire consequences on all of China's "feeder" economies, namely Brazil and Australia.

But while we have been tracking the implosion of Brazil's economy since December, long before the rest of the world noticed the calamitous collapse of what was once Latin America's most vibrant economy, it was a very recent event in Australia - not the country's parallel economic slowdown also due to China's hard landing: that was painfully clear long in advance - that took many by surprise. Namely, the resignation of Tony Abbott almost exactly two years after becoming Prime Minister.

And while it is easy to blame his admission of failure on external factors, namely the Chinese slowdown, a very surprising finding has emerged over the past few days, one which reveals Abbott's "ouster" in a totally different light.

According to Freedom of Information documents obtained by Australia's ABC, now-former prime minister Tony Abbott's own department discussed setting up an investigation into the Bureau of Meteorology amid media claims it was exaggerating estimates of global warming.

Yes, it appears that the prime minister himself had dared to question to prevailing status quo on "global warming."

ABC reports that in August and September 2014, The Australian newspaper published reports questioning the Bureau of Meteorology's (BoM) methodology for analyzing temperatures, reporting claims BoM was "wilfully ignoring evidence that contradicts its own propaganda."

Naturally, the BoM strongly rejected assertions it was altering climate records to exaggerate estimates of global warming. Nevertheless, as the following document obtained by the ABC shows, just weeks after the articles were published, Mr Abbott's own department canvassed using a taskforce to carry out "due diligence" on the BoM's climate records.

As it turns out, late in 2014 the Australia government set up a taskforce to provide advice on post 2020 emissions reduction targets ahead of the United Nations Paris climate change conference in December 2015. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet originally wanted the taskforce to also conduct "due diligence to ensure Australia's climate and emissions data are the best possible, including the Bureau of Meteorology's Australian temperature dataset".

An accompanying brief seen by Mr Abbott noted that "in recent articles in The Australian, the BoM was accused of altering its temperature data records to exaggerate estimates of global warming". To wit from the ABC:

"The way the Bureau manages its climate records is recognised internationally as among the best in the world," the brief said.

"Nevertheless, the public need confidence information on Australia and the world's climate is reliable and based on the best available science."

Inexplicably, instead of letting it go as most "status quo" governments always do, the cabinet kept pushing with demands for audits: audits which, if taken too far, may reveals some truly very "inconvenient truths" if not so much about global warming, as about the propaganda behind it and the firms that stood to profit from such propaganda.

The pressure intensified when Mr Abbott's business advisory council chair Maurice Newman wrote an opinion piece in the paper, demanding a Government-funded audit and review of the Bureau.

 

The concerns centred on the Bureau's temperature homogenisation process — the method in which it adjusts temperatures for weather sites based on factors like trees casting shade or influencing wind or if the station is moved.

It was then that the pushback started in earnest: enter Greg Hunt, Australia's Environment Minister who would do everything in his power to halt Abbott's crusade to "audit" the BoM.  In a letter to Abbott in November 2014, Hunt called for the removal of the due diligence clause, pointing out that he and his parliamentary secretary, Simon Birmingham, had already “established a strengthened governance oversight of the bureau’s ongoing work in this area." In other words, "trust us" - we are the government... we work for you.

Both the Department of Environment and Environment Minister Greg Hunt argued against having the taskforce investigate the Bureau. One Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet bureaucrat described a Department of Environment official as being "on a campaign" to get the references to BoM removed from the taskforce's responsibilities.

 

Further documents appear to show Mr Hunt convinced senior cabinet members to remove any references of "due diligence" or "quality assurance".

 

In a letter to Mr Abbott written on November 18 last year, Mr Hunt highlighted the fact the "draft terms of reference refers to the taskforce doing due diligence on the Bureau of Meteorology's Australian temperature data set".

 

"In doing this, it is important to note that public trust in the Bureau's data and forecasts, particularly as they relate to bushfires and cyclones, is paramount," it said. "Given the recent publicity about the Bureau's temperature data sets, Senator Birmingham and I established a strengthened governance oversight of the Bureau's ongoing work in this area."

Said otherwise, don't you dare question global warming or else the public may lost faith in the Bureau of Meteorology's forecasts about "bushfires and cyclones." One couldn't possibly make this up if one tried.

As for the assurance Greg Hunt gave to Abbott to drop his audit, it basically was a promise to "self-regulate" better through a, drumroll, technical advisory forum:

The strengthened governance of the Bureau that Mr Hunt referred to is the setting up a Technical Advisory Forum to review and provide advice on the Bureau's temperature data — a recommendation from an earlier review of the Bureau's processes.

 

"It is important to emphasise that this is primarily a matter of meteorology, statistics and data assurance," Mr Hunt wrote in his letter to Mr Abbott.

This, of course, is a page right out of the Keynesian/monetarist playbook: one can't sow seeds of doubt in the mind of the public that the most sacrosanct assumptions about the world are wrong by open government probes be it by auditing the Fed, or Hillary's email server... or Australia's meteorological data, so instead let's just take their word that all the data will be scrubbed and double checked.

A 2011 review found the Bureau's data and analysis methods met world's best practice but recommended a group be set up to review progress on the development and operation of the temperature data. 

 

The 2015 panel included eminent statisticians and members have told the ABC they were in no doubt that it was set up in response to the newspaper articles. A draft letter from Mr Abbott addressed to Mr Hunt showed that Mr Abbott wanted personal updates on the panel's review.

 

"The credibility of Government agencies is important and must be ensured," the letter read.

And while the review naturally cleared the BoM of any data "goal-seeking" when it was released in June, perhaps the threat of future such audits was simply too much - three months later Abbott was gone.

This is not Abbott's first concern about either met data, or global warming. As the Guardian notes, Abbott previously questioned the reliability of climate science, but when he was prime minister he repeatedly said he accepted the climate was changing and humans made “a contribution”. In other public statements, Abbott said coal was “good for humanity” and wind turbines were “visually awful”.

Perhaps the recent probe into the "statistics and data" behind the Australian Bureau of Meteorology were the straw that broke the camel's back: clearly Abbott was not going to be appeased and would continue his probes and audits into the "conventional wisdom" behind global warming, a persistence which threatened one firm more than any other.

Goldman Sachs.

While we hardly have to remind readers that it is Goldman that conceived of the carbon-credit market, and was behind cap and trade, here is an (in)convenient summary of who the true puppetmaster is behind the worldwide infatuation with stopping "global warming", and who stands to benefit the most as the world is manipulated into doing everything to kill global warming dead in its tracks, courtesy of Matt Taibbi:

…Fast-forward to today. it’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs – its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign – sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.Gone are HankPaulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm’s co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits – a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.

 

The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that’s been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won’t even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

 

Here’s how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy “allocations” or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions: President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

 

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the “cap” on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand-new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison’s sake, the annual combined revenues of all’ electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

 

Goldman wants this bill. The plan is (1) to get in on the ground floor of paradigm-shifting legislation, (2) make sure that they’re the profit-making slice of that paradigm and (3) make sure the slice is a big slice. Goldman started pushing hard for cap-and-trade long ago, but things really ramped up last year when the firm spent $3.5 million to lobby climate issues. (One of their lobbyists at the time was none other than Patterson, now Treasury chief ofstaff.) Back in 2005, when Hank Paulson was chief of Goldman, he personally helped author the bank’s environmental policy, a document that contains some surprising elements for a firm that in all other areas has been consistently opposed to any sort of government regulation. Paulson’s report argued that “voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate-change problem.” A few years later, the bank’s carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, insisted that cap-and-trade alone won’t be enough to fix the climate problem and called for further public investments in research and development. Which is convenient, considering that Goldman made early investments in wind power (it bought a subsidiary called Horizon Wind Energy), renewable diesel (it is an investor in a firm called Changing World Technologies) and solar power (it partnered with BP Solar), exactly the kind of deals that will prosper if the government forces energy producers to use cleaner energy. As Paulson said at the time, “We’re not making those investments to lose money.”

 

The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Hanis. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets, There’s also a $500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech … the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy-futures market?

 

Oh, it’ll dwarf it,” says a former staffer on the House energy committee.

 

Well, you might say, who cares? If cap-and-trade succeeds, won’t we all be saved from the catastrophe of global warming? Maybe – but cap-and-trade, as envisioned by Goldman, is really just a carbon tax structured so that private interests collect the revenues. Instead of simply imposing a fixed government levy on carbon pollution and forcing unclean energy producers to pay for the mess they make, cap-and-trade will allow a small tribe of greedy-as-hell Wall Street swine to turn yet another commodities market into a private tax-collection scheme. This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.

 

Cap-and-trade is going to happen. Or, if it doesn’t, something like it will. The moral is the same as for all the other bubbles that Goldman helped create, from 1929 to 2009. In almost every case, the very same bank that behaved recklessly for years, weighing down the system with toxic loans and predatory debt, and accomplishing nothing but massive bonuses for a few bosses, has been rewarded with mountains of virtually free money and government guarantees – while the actual victims in this mess, ordinary taxpayers, are the ones paying for it.

In short: trillions are at stake for Goldman as long as the "fight" against global warming continues. And as noted above, cap-and-trade is going to happen or "something like it will" - Goldman's future revenues depend on it.

In fact, the only thing that can crush this finely orchestrated plan to generate billions in private profits from the mass euphoria to "save the planet" funded, naturally, entirely by the taxpayer, is a critical piece of evidence that the data and statistics behind "global warming" has been fabricated,  something which very well may have occurred had Abbott's plan for an audit gone too far.

And so Abbott suddenly became a major liability, if not so much for Australia, then certainly for Goldman Sachs.

In retrospect, while Abbott completely unexpected exit on September 14 was a shock, his Prime Ministerial replacement should come as no surprise at all: Malcolm Turnbull, as we noted, just happened to be Chairman of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997-2001. The same Turnbull who was deposed as opposition leader in 2009 over his support for a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme, a "scheme" that, when fully implemented, would lead to huge monetary windfalls for none other than Turnbull's former employer: Goldman Sachs.

So was Goldman the responsible party behind Abbott's ouster? One can only speculate, however one thing is certain: any concerns and fears of "probes" or "audits" into Australia's global warming "data and statistics" are now history.

* * *

ABC's full FOIA revealing Abbott's probe of BoM "data" below:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Nostradumbass's picture

You CANNOT have a role in the rapidly forming NWO with an attitude like that! You're out!

WTFRLY's picture

This won't be necessary once the 'Great Event' happens.

knukles's picture

When Goldman supports Global Warming, then you know it's all a pile of BS

midtowng's picture

ZH doesn't cover itself in glory when it denies science.

Lurk Skywatcher's picture

Science takes data and develops a theory that explains that data.

Religion starts with a theory and interprets the data to fit that theory.

Climate Science has already been found guilty of adjusting data to fit its theories, and refusing to release the raw data for inspection.

And now the Pope insists that God wants man to fix climate change.

The only "science" you are talking about is the science of fleecing the public to enrich the already rich.

 

Latina Lover's picture

The GS gang are slavering over ther profits they can make manipulating carbon credit markets. Since they are literally nothing but hot air, with no inventory to fiddle, the opportunities to scam the public are unlimited.

Manthong's picture

Those who are not in the “Big Club” can be considered to be “one people” as opposed to those in the Big Club who constitute for discussion sake, another people.

The most appropriate words that come to mind in all of this begin with the phrase “When in the course of human events”.

Anybody else out there in line with the reality of a “long train of abuses and usurpations”?

 

James_Cole's picture
Did A Probe Into "Global Warming" Fraud Cost A Prime Minister's Job

Answer: No.

Here kids, more fun with AGW:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/investigation-finds-...

In 1978, the Exxon researchers warned that a doubling of CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius and would have a major impact on the company’s core business.

In a written response to the InsideClimate News investigation, an Exxon spokesman said that, “At all times, the opinions and conclusions of our scientists and researchers on this topic have been solidly within the mainstream of the consensus scientific opinion of the day and our work has been guided by an overarching principle to follow where the science leads. The risk of climate change is real and warrants action.”

TuPhat's picture

Since 1978?  Even I can tell that's bull.  There was no actual research being done back then and there hasn't been any since.  BS about BS times more BS does not make AGW a fact.

turtle's picture

AND THAT AIN'T THE HALF OF IT FOLKS...

Tony Abbots replacement (ie. Australia's NEW prime minister) was amongst other things including being another Rhodes scholar... "chair and managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia (1997–2001) and a partner with Goldman Sachs and Co (1998–2001)." ... 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Turnbull


OldPhart's picture

Actually, there was, but the scare was that we were to be in a new Ice Age.  Apparently caused by hair spray (not kidding, that's why Chlorofluorocarbon was banned. We were "eating our ozone". 

http://www.theozonehole.com/cfc.htm

A hole in the ozone would let space drop into our atmosphere, bringing nearby areas to near zero Kelvin. Clouds would turn to ice and fall from the sky, The oceans would expand as they froze into perma-ice and scrape off coastal cities around the world, and humans would be forced to live in underground hives.

Same bullshit, different era.

stilletto's picture

When you read it you see its bollocks. Energy does not radiate from the earth to atmosphere it convects and conducts. Only in the stratospere does it radiate

James_Cole's picture

Science takes data and develops a theory that explains that data.

No, science observes phenomena, collects data and proposes hypothesis and then experimentally tests to verify / deny / modify hypothesis. If these experimental results as applied to hypothesis can be replicated widely a theory is developed.

This process has given us: evolution, gravitation and appropriately: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Religion skips the whole verifiable results thing..

Teh Finn's picture

Religion skips the whole verifiable results thing..

Well that explains why CAGW is a religion.

James_Cole's picture

For those with reference points stuck in 1700, yes, it might seem like hocus pocus religion. For everyone else:

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859. The effect was more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote "[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect", and "The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house."

Wiki editors have beefed this article since last I saw it, for any zh'ers interested in reality:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

doctor10's picture

19th century reasoning is right up there with a Flat Earth son.

The Frauds supporting the "data"-now are a prime creation of the 21st century financial scam artists. They have gotten themselves painted into a corner unless they can figure out a way to tax the every living breath out of every living creature on the planet.

And are saving up all the bilious violence they can muster to make it happen.

newdoobie's picture

If it's all that dangerous, just pump some aluminum chaff up high enough and watch the temps drop. Cheap and easy solution. Volcanoes cool the earth with just dust and they produce more green house gases in one eruption than humans have over the entire span of humanity

Polonius's picture

That's what they've been doing for at least twenty years...spraying coal fly ash all over the world.  But it's been to done to do the opposite.  Yes, it reflects, but it also traps heat below and has contributed to rising temps and, of course, helps them engineer droughts and other weather anomolies that support their climate change meme.  It is quite disappointing that the global spraying project is not even mentioned in this article.  Folks, this is very, very real.  Just look up, no matter where you are, and whether you realize it or not, the probability is very high that those are not cirrus clouds you see, but rather coal fly ash dispersing from the overnight spray.  Believe it or not.

Zero Point's picture

Also not mentioned is the another Squid director. Alex Turnbull, the son of the "ex" GS director that is now Prime Minister of my country. The Squid is now totally in control of the Australian Goyim.

TuPhat's picture

'The greenhouse becomes a hothouse'  no evidence has been found for that.  In fact the existence of fossil fuels tells us that carbon dioxide was way more abundant in the atmosphere eons ago when those fossil fuels were being made.  Coal comes from plants so there was an abundance of plants back then, not a dead dry hot earth.  Use a little inteligent thought and you can easily see that AGW is bunk.

James_Cole's picture

'The greenhouse becomes a hothouse'  no evidence has been found for that. 

It's been proven countless times. If you were adventurous you could even prove it yourself via simple experiment!

In fact the existence of fossil fuels tells us that carbon dioxide was way more abundant in the atmosphere eons ago when those fossil fuels were being made. 

The science is not strong with this one. Though yes, co2 was much more prevalent in the atmosphere at different times in the past... like them times humans didn't exist and those other times when most life forms were wiped out lol

You will find this interesting, I made sure it is at your reading / comprehension level:

http://www.fplsafetyworld.com/?ver=kkblue&utilid=fplforkids&id=16200

nightshiftsucks's picture

Calling you shit for brains is to kind,and why the fuck are they polluting the sky with coal ash ?

Ace006's picture

When did those life forms die out, what were they, and what caused their death?

newdoobie's picture

Then why do the 'scientists' have to keep changing the data? How come you cant get data that isn't adjusted.

You cant replicate results in GW, and predictions never materialize

How come the theories keep missing the targets expounded upon?

Keep moving those targets boys, no one will notice.

 

"Opps we lost the original data but here are all the adjusted figures and dire consequences"

 

James_Cole's picture

Two possibilities:

1. You are wrong about the data / conclusions.

2. There is a global multi-century scientific falsehood knowingly / maliciously perpetrated by conspiracy among the pre-eminent physicists and chemists of the day - with almost all other scientists carrying their water.

TuPhat's picture

There could be warming in your brain because you must be feverish.

All Risk No Reward's picture

Hi James, Two quotes and a question...

"We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think – in fact they do so."
~Bertrand Russell, The ABC of Relativity (1925), p. 166.

"In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the [Debt-Money Monopolist financed] Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a [Debt-Money Monopolist financed] government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.

For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by [Debt-Money Monopolist financed] Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
~President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Question:  How do you *know* that AGW is actual science instead of a financed agenda controlled by a Debt-Money Monopoly financed scientific-technological elite (scientism)?

James_Cole's picture

How do you *know* that AGW is actual science instead of a financed agenda controlled by a Debt-Money Monopoly financed scientific-technological elite (scientism)?

The scientific theory is not in question and goes back a long long time. Questioning the theory at this point would be like an obese person saying to their doc "but how do you know I should eat less donuts?”

The ability to quantify AGW is considerably more complicated and the computer power / data necessary are still in the stoneage.

Everything in this world is engineered through approximation - measuring and calculating an extremely complex system will involve a lot of error in data / calculation but still there is an observable trend. As the data and calculation get better the prediction also gets better.

If you look around you will see few people questioning the theory and instead harping on the data. Why is that? When newton measured gravity it was pretty good, but you wouldn't want to set satellites to it - yet his theory was correct for what he was dealing with.

MEAN BUSINESS's picture

The discussion around the development of our currently dominant philosophy of science, especially as it pertains to funding and corruption, as well as the oppresive capabilities of "scientism" is certainly worth having!

It is not really a dichotomy, AGW is actual science and also a financed agenda. Meteorology has been so since it's 'modern' inception but the pioneers were keenly aware of the issues above:

"Now this is just what we should avoid, and be careful not to restrain the liberty of the observer. Every one must consider the usage prevailing in his own country and the extent of his means; we should remember that one who is ordered to observe certain regulations does not effect half so much as one, who investigates according to his own judgement. Liberty should be respected everywhere; but especially in science should her spirit guide all our inquiries. By some very general indications they may be directed in such matters, that the general utility be promoted by the cooperation of all; only such restrictions should be made as are necessary to contribute to the interests of science, to promote the common welfare, by pro posing some rules and discussing them. By this means we may obtain a general method to be followed in making our observations and in publishing them."

 

ROYAL DUTCH METEOROLOGICAL INSTITUTE  SUGGESTIONS ON A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS (1872)

ironically the author's name is ... Buys-Ballot !!! Anyway, The frontrunner to the International Meteorological Organization (IMO) here were all navy guys (military!) so no need to wonder where the funding is coming from. The IMO was morphed into the WMO, World Meteroloical Organization, which is basically the driver of the system that created the AGW debate:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/bulletinarchive/archive/58_3_en/58...

WMO bulletin July 2009 A history of climate activities

And yes Zero Hedgers, even back in 1872 they were talking about "a change in climate". "Global Warming" MEANS today we MEAN anthropogenic global warming.

ALL roads lead to PARIS

macle's picture

The Earth cools itself mainly by emitting infrared radiation into space. Greenhouse gases reduce this cooling.

CO² , a weak greenhouse gas, has only one significant absorption band for this infrared, at 15 micron. But the band is already saturated. All of the 15 micron radiation leaving the Earth's surface is already absorbed. So adding more CO² has a small and diminishing effect (lowering the height of absorption and slightly increasing it in the shoulders of the band).

Standard radiation heat transfer shows that the direct effect of doubling the amount of CO² in the air from present levels (390 parts per million, or ppm) would increase the global temperature about 1°C.

However, there would be feedback (response to change) and it would be negative (countering the change), and so the actual temperature increase would be much less than 1°C.

All observation and records confirms this, and this is consistent with satellite measurements.

A likely agent for negative feedback is low clouds. Heating increases evaporation, leading to more water vapour in the air, which condenses into clouds. The cooling effect of the clouds, which reflect away sunlight, outweighs the heating effect of extra water vapour.
Rising CO² will have no significant effect on our climate. But it will make our crops and forests grow much better.

James_Cole's picture

But the band is already saturated. All of the 15 micron radiation leaving the Earth's surface is already absorbed. So adding more CO² has a small and diminishing effect (lowering the height of absorption and slightly increasing it in the shoulders of the band).

If this were correct we'd all be dead.

Standard radiation heat transfer shows that the direct effect of doubling the amount of CO² in the air from present levels (390 parts per million, or ppm) would increase the global temperature about 1°C.

However, there would be feedback (response to change) and it would be negative (countering the change), and so the actual temperature increase would be much less than 1°C.

You're starting out with the wrong baseline on co2, but what is your 'much less'?

macle's picture

James, I'm sure you are capable of locating the relevant scholarly research, just Google co2+infrared+absorption+band+15+micron. Unless you have already made your mind up and refuse to accept any info that does not agree with your view.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-afte...

Stackers's picture

As much as I love to hate Gleen Beck he did a great piece of the Cap and Trade / Goldman scam many years ago

Part 1:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwqyfYzt16Y

Part 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7zKCaSLISQ

wiser's picture

Carbon credits are tradable permits or certificates that are typically related to the emission of one ton carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas considered responsible for the controversial global warming process. 

Carbon credits can be earned by companies who engage in ecologically friendly practices that remove the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from the environment. These credits can then be sold to other companies that continue to produce carbon emissions as a way to finance further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Carbon credits were chosen by countries agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol as an alternative to a carbon tax.

http://www.silverseek.com/commentary/carbon-credit-derivatives

Stackers's picture

Small problem with that statement is Cardon Dioxide is NOT the primary greenhouse gas considered responsible for -- and get it right please --- "climate change"

 

according to "climate change" scientist the primary greenhouse gas responsible is methane produced by animals raised for human consumption. ANY climate change boob that is not a Vegan is a charlatan, a hypocrite, and a liar

newdoobie's picture

Nope, neither CO2 nor Methane is the big culprit. its H2O!

CO2 and Methane etc. only raise the temp enough to create more evaporation of H2O.

Remeber the experiments you did raising food in a terarium?  The increase in water molecules held in the heat and killed everything in the sealed jar.

do an experiment put a thermometer in 3 sealed jars, vacumn the air out and replace with water in one, CO2 in one and methane in the other, put in sunlight and measure the temps.

Dancing Disraeli's picture

Cloud cover which has a tremendous influence on climate, hasn't and cannot be factored in as satellite data was not available historically.  Further, low level clouds have a completely different effect vs high level.  Incomplete data and analysis being foisted on us as science.

booboo's picture

Nice kiddie experiment and it probably was all that was needed to convince Al Gore we are all doomed, now back to planet earth and it's unquantifiable multi faceted ever changing cyclical life.

I suppose shoving an ice cube into the crack of ones ass would be another "scientific" experiment to prove to some we need a carbon exchange where Goldmanites can rape and pillage the poor.

MEAN BUSINESS's picture

Would love to hear the convoluted twisted mangaling word salad that explains how CO2 is not primarily responsible for global warming (well, not really) but FYI Al Gore is a vegan these days, just not for ideological reasons. He says he simply feels better, which may be normal for older people?

Chaos Trend's picture

Do you really need a convoluted word salad to understand that CO2 comprises about 0.039% of the earth's atmosphere? And that human-produced CO2 comprises only a very tiny fraction of that 0.039%?

It's common knowledge that simple water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas (overwhelmingly). The warmists insist on equating the earth's atmosphere with an actual greenhouse (which it's not). But if they insist, then why aren't they (and you) crying for water vapor credits instead of carbon credits?

The question answers itself: How you gonna' tax humans for the creation of water vapor?

Wake the hell up.

MEAN BUSINESS's picture

"War mists" like the IPCC?

Be sure to forward the 0.039% revelation to them stat! You'll be famous!

A: ultimately mass murder (it's gonna' be hell)

Good morning Sunshine

Latina Lover's picture

Quoting Wiser:

"Carbon credits are tradable permits or certificates that are typically related to the emission of one ton carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas considered responsible for the controversial global warming process"

 

Hey Wiser, are you planning to tax volcanoes?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

What about Fukishima? How about dealing with real problems, instead of shilling for GS?

mvsjcl's picture

Citing "facts" sometimes makes you "dumber."

ISEEIT's picture

For 'science' to be ethical, Philosophy is required.

Alchemy wasn't/isn't a science of purely identified physical considerations.

Denying (being a denier) of 'science' must include considerations of the easily identified agenda being moved 'FORWARD' globally...OR admission to the fallacious and insidious fraud being perpetrated upon humanity via these various streams of perversity such as 'climate change', 'global warming', 'climate disruption'....

All fanciful enough terms and legitimate for entertainment I suppose.

Ultimately however it is FRAUD.

An artificial construct concocted to perpetuate a ruse..hoax...ponzi..trick.

A LIE.