Trading on our emotions

clouds in the thin air

Never more truth said in error

Brian Fallow, in the Herald today, emphasis added (h/t Richard Cumming):

“The review, to be chaired by David Caygill, is a statutory requirement. It is expressly not to revisit the issues, debated at tedious length for at least the past decade, about whether New Zealand should be taking action on climate change at all or whether an emotions trading scheme is the most appropriate response.”

Oh, the emotions trading scheme? Ha-ha! His error illuminates an inconvenient truth about the ETS! It’s founded on emotion. Yes, Brian, I know it was a simple mistake, saying ’emotions’ instead of ’emissions’, but it reveals a great deal about the ETS and it’s worth laughing at because you say it again! Further on:

The Obama Administration has acknowledged that a national cap-and-trade (emotions trading) scheme is a non-starter for at least the next couple of years. Japan has shelved its plans for an ETS. Climate policy in Australia remains up in the air.

There can be no clearer example of an “error” revealing the writer’s true thinking. For the ETS depends entirely on trading on our emotions. There’s no science persuading us to reduce our emissions — there’s no evidence. There’s only speculation and the electronic dreams of computer models. The activists convince us only through emotive appeals to save polar bears and other cuddly animals, using graphs of carbon dioxide and temperature to illustrate fraudulent descriptions of climate science.

Note Farrow’s comment that climate issues were “debated at tedious length”. It is tedious when you don’t want to listen to evidence that you’re wrong. The thoughtful people know only too well that the case for a human cause for dangerous global warming has not yet been made.

Brian, there has never been a proper, public debate on the evidence of global warming. And some of us will not stop asking for that evidence, no matter how often you claim tedium. You may be bored, old chap, but you haven’t answered us from your prominent, so-public podium. Why ever not?

Undeliverable and unwanted

Brian’s slip of the tongue highlights the disconnect between science (or, in other words, observations of reality) and the activists’ attempt to “save the earth” through a ridiculous scheme to “fight” the climate.

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) attempts courageously to persuade us to buy and sell the invisible, indeterminable, undeliverable and unwanted emissions of the most productive of our industries, vehicles and appliances. But nobody wants the emissions.

This is the only time in human history when we have traded a “commodity” that nobody wants. All previous get-rich schemes expected that the seller would want the product, or at least be attracted by a false description of the product.

No measurements

But these emissions are correctly described, and still not a single buyer wants to actually take delivery of them — not now, and not ever — and nobody denies that. Whoever devised the scheme was an entrepreneurial genius, because fees will be taken and tickets will be clipped at every turn — yet the product comes for nothing, doesn’t have to be delivered and the quantities can’t be trusted.

The bureaucrats’ tonnage figures are based on formulae, not measurements. In other words, every single pinus radiata tree, for example, has the same uptakes and emissions as every other, regardless of soil type, temperature, rainfall, sunshine or atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. Every year produces more scientific studies revealing how little we know about these natural processes, yet the politicians have ensured that we’re paying already. Paying for and in ignorance, I say!

Now we can sell thin air

The sellers (and the traders are all sellers) are delighted with the non-delivery aspect, for they cannot collect the products, store them or transport them. It’s impossible, because the emissions have disappeared into thin air.

It goes without saying that, free of the expense of those unproductive activities, the selling margin becomes 100% profit.

For the first time, it’s possible to sell thin air and the government is already taxing it!

Who invented the idea of emissions trading? Why, that’s right, it was Enron — remember them? They were corrupt and went bankrupt. Inventing emissions trading wasn’t genius — it was mere avarice. It remains avarice that motivates the growing scrum of finance houses, bankers and insurance corporations setting up trading schemes around the world. Potential turnover is now being estimated in trillions of dollars.

Truly an emotions trading scheme

So the commodity being traded cannot be seen, measured, collected or delivered, and neither the seller nor the buyer wants it. It might as well be ignored, because the scheme depends only on the emotions of the traders. They, of course, are moved only by the profit motive.

It truly is an Emotions Trading Scheme.

Soberingly, the other reality is the government playing on their citizens’ emotions in persuading them to accept a sneaky new method of taxation for the sake of the “environment”. For who wouldn’t want to “save the world”? If you say no to that, you’re anti-social and a cad.

Fallow shows us that this analysis is close to the truth, for unconsciously he says it not just once, but twice. But whether he says it or not, the truth has been clear for some time to those able to see.

Brian, have you heard “that there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years”? That’s according to Dr Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist.

Mr Fallow, give up your support for a discredited and increasingly disruptive cause.

Visits: 41

One Thought on “Trading on our emotions

  1. Andy on 22/01/2011 at 6:14 pm said:

    Here’s my interpretation of this:

    The author misspelled “emissions”. A spell checker ran through the article and changed the word to “emotions”

    No one proof-read the article to make sure it made sense. This is yet another example why the MSM is becoming increasingly irrelevant. They are losing readership, and intelligent people now get their news from blogs.

    Richard North is on the case, yet again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation