Church Of Climatology

[Wally]

Wow, that was a marathon read, made harder by my mind wandering off with thoughts of those heretics who lost their lives because they suggested the earth moved around the sun, that germs can cause infection, that animals evolve, that lead cannot be made into gold by alchemists, etc.

Seems to me that if you don't supp at the alter of the climate change deniers you must be a raving maniac with world domination in mind.

It's the politicians in concert with scientists who made the unpopular, but hard decisons to mandate lead free fuels, catalytic converters, and so on; they copped the hysteria from the media and self interest groups and out the back end we, the public benefitted, without handing power to some new world government.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by Herald Sun

In 2008, carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion and is projected to grow to become a $2-$10 trillion dollar market, or “The largest commodity traded world wide”. The largest. That’s bigger than oil, coal, gas, or iron.

Jeez, when you read that line, it will make the Saudi oil barrens and big mine operators look like small fry compared the money this will generate.

Gotta give it to them, they've managed to work out a way to make an absolute huge amount of cash, out of a situation not even proven. If we put this thing through, we'll be absolute wood ducks

[MO]

@wally, Are you for real,there are no climate change deniers here there are those that say climate change is happening all the time and its the reasons put forward to tax us even more that are in question. You cannot stop/change/alter whatever the climate does.
As for the rest of your post wake up.

[snappy]

Also on the other day on abc radio a scientist rang up and said him and his collegues have researching magnetics for 20 years , An can say with 100% certainty that the sun is the issue for climate change and has proof to back his claims up . He also was basically cut off.

I think climate change is real it has been happening since adam pegged eve its the issue of man made climate change i believe is false and hope im alive when it is exposed for the fraud that it is.

[snappy]

Behind the scenes, large financial houses are moving in stealthily. In 2008, carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion and is projected to grow to become a $2-$10 trillion dollar market, or “The largest commodity traded world wide”. The largest. That’s bigger than oil, coal, gas, or iron.

That's scary , if that's the case we have not got a hope in hell of sqaushing the scheme .
Time to buy a some acerage plant some trees set up a front and start selling clean air .

[xtremerus]

Originally Posted by Wally

Wow, that was a marathon read, made harder by my mind wandering off with thoughts of those heretics who lost their lives because they suggested the earth moved around the sun, that germs can cause infection, that animals evolve, that lead cannot be made into gold by alchemists, etc.

Seems to me that if you don't supp at the alter of the climate change deniers you must be a raving maniac with world domination in mind.

Wally
Don't you realise that it is YOU that is going along with the mainstream populus GW theory at this present time. Just as people went along with the flat earth etc, that you mention above, in their time. It is YOU that cannot accept an alternative view, at this present time. YOU are the one in denial of alternative thinking, not us.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by MO

@wally, Are you for real,there are no climate change deniers here there are those that say climate change is happening all the time and its the reasons put forward to tax us even more that are in question. You cannot stop/change/alter whatever the climate does.
As for the rest of your post wake up.

Why can't we change/alter climate? Wake up to what ..... denial that treating the environment like it's our rubbish tip will have an effect?

I'm with you on taxation though, I hate taxation and my views on govt interference, over goverenence, nanny state, over policing etc are well enough known, but I just don't see how we will not pay to keep the place habitable in the distant future. This isn't a Holden v Ford v Toyota thing, it's high stakes.

[MO]

Originally Posted by Wally

Why can't we change/alter climate? Wake up to what ..... denial that treating the environment like it's our rubbish tip will have an effect?

I'm with you on taxation though, I hate taxation and my views on govt interference, over goverenence, nanny state, over policing etc are well enough known, but I just don't see how we will not pay to keep the place habitable in the distant future. This isn't a Holden v Ford v Toyota thing, it's high stakes.

Because we don't have the technology yet if we ever will,how many failed attempts to make rain are there. How can you alter/change the climate the forces involved in the climate are far greater than anything we can come up with. How would you alter/change the wind direction,the temperature,the humidity,when and where it will rain etc??
So if we can't change anything to do with climate how is imposing a tax going to do it?

[Wally]

Well I think you know the answer to that. We dropped harmful freon out of the equation and the hole above the pole responded in kind. If you base you thinking on the futility of doing anything then I can see where your theory comes into play.

In the space of a generation we have seen significant change and it's not a blip on the radar and it's not consistent with the Milankovitch theory either. We've been like frogs in simmering water and now someone is turning up the heat.

[MO]

@wally,do some research on the ozone hole....freon..lol

[King Nothing]

Wally

I myself was for a long time a fence sitter on AGW. Professionally, an ETS would probably benefit me as part of the business I work for is very much focusing on process energy efficiency improvements with the existence of an ETS. An ETS would lead to more work.

But have you actually looked at anything else aside from Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" ? I hazard that guess as your analogy is straight from his film. Gotta say, it was a very convincing flick (even if his centrepiece, the hockey stick graph, has since been disproven).

I suggest you do some reading up on the "Climategate" saga, the british CRU leak which reveals a whole bunch of issues. I've summarised it in a previous post in this thread. This whole story has made me start doubting the extent of our influence on GW and how extreme GW will be. The problems I have with the current AGW establishment are

1. Why did these scientists feel the need to destroy emails and data subject to freedom of information requests? Why did they refuse to share data?

2. The peer review process appears to have been manipulated and controlled to squeeze out opposing views (i.e. non-AGW). Why?

3. The code for the model is littered with bugs and comments stating "VERY ARTIFICIAL DECLINE", manual entry of data after 1980, and a complete lack of control of data. Frankly, in my industry, as soon as data integrity is questioned everything is in question. As a result the IPCC report, the UN and US EPA findings, and any government policy is based on potentially flawed data. Policy that will cost you and me a fortune. I for one want to make sure it is all above board before any massive commitments are made.


If there are rational explanations for all of this (and more), I would love to hear it. But until these questions are answered, and remember the CRUs data and modelling features heavily in the IPCC report (as well as other studies) and hence government policy, then I cannot support an ETS. If, once proper reviews are done and they are all cleared (which I doubt), then I will support some form of carbon reduction.

Although I personally beleive an ETS is not the answer. Think about it. If an ETS was adopted tomorrow the following would happen;

1 - Companies are charged to pay for credits based on their carbon emissions.
2 - These companies will not absorb the cost, they pass it on to consumers
3 - Consumers accept the price rise, and eventually get used to it. At this point in time, there is minimal significant environmental benefit, especially on a per unit cost basis.
4 - Companies continue on a relatively unchanged process (trust me, I've modelled it) for a few years until carbon-reducing technologies are economically feasible (ETS will help this, but not in all cases)
5 - At this point, the companies will have to purchase less credits (or be able to sell their own existing ones).

At this point, the companies will do one of three things;

A - Maintain the same profit margin, hence lowering the cost to consumers
B - Maintain sales prices, hence increasing profit and margins at no benefit to consumers
C - A combination of the above, competition being the driver

Now which do you think will happen? A couple of quick case studies;

The air carrier fuel levy - When oil prices skyrocketed, airlines cried poor and said they needed to charge a fuel levy to remain profitable. When oil prices fell, did the levy drop? Nope, certainly not for a while in most cases

Mortgage interest rates - Did the banks drop their interest rates every time interest rates dropped over the last 14 months or so by the same amount? Nope. Are the banks keeping up with current rises? Yes, and then some.

Bowser fuel prices - To go back to the oil theme, when oil prices dropped, did fuel prices drop proportionalty? Nope, not to the same extent. Did they follow the trend back upwards? Of course.

So this is why an ETS is not the solution. It will penalise average workers, subsidise big business at the start of the scheme, then allow them to fatten profits once carbon reduction technologies come on line.

[MO]

Excellent post King Nothing. The end consumer no matter what is done will be the one to bear the brunt of any costs. For a lot of ppl out there paying their bills is hard enough bring in any extra impost and you will find a hell of a lot more ppl living homeless.

We cannot afford to let ourselves be conned/railroaded into anything to do so will have an impact that would make a depression seem like a picnic.

[King Nothing]

Welcome to the future...

I work in an office which has all these eco-features (automatic lighting, smart HVAC systems for air con, etc). So I go to the toilet, sitting there, and the damn light turns itself off.

The way of the future under an ETS. Sitting on the throne, in the dark, wondering when we went back to the stone age.

[Wally]

Guys (King and Mo) , I suspect nothing will make you stray from the path you have chosen and that's fine. But please don't paraphrase my thoughts. I have not watched Al Gore's propoganda. I am fully aware of CFCs/CHClF2 and the Montreal Protocol.

My stance is that our environment is in chaos. I look at countries like China who have increased world man made CO2 emmissions by more than a third in 10 years. I look at how they have locked up Himalayan melt water and prevented it from flowing to and stratifying the SE asian seas where monsoon rains come from. I ponder stark evidence from prestigeous organisations of rapid polar detoriation, increased desertification of scrub regions, of wiped out fishing stocks, of pacific island being inundated by tides.

I don't go to the flicks to get my information, I subscribe to magazines and papers that have been predicting these events since I was a lad; it was even part of the Social Studies A subject way back in the sixties. The subtle approach just hasn't worked, because the disciplines required would have taken business and personal out of their comfort zones. The "she'll be right" attitude has worked for us for so long we carry it as a badge, ignoring the hard working people who surreptitiously steered success lest they be branded as tall poppies.

King Nothing that toilet where the lights go out, the air conditioning goes into duty cycle, etc are not relevenet to the topic at hand. How do I know this, well I am a published albeit reluctant author of papers relating to smart buildings, automation and energy/resource management. The drivers for this technology are rooted in client based desire for energy savings and prestige. In the early 80's I was personally involved in the implementation of computerisation of building infra structure, including the first "intelligent building". The green star buildings is a new face on an old theme and has little to do with CPRS/ETS considerations.

Now maybe I've misread a lot of the threads in this topic, but I think there are two themes here. One is that climate change is a machination of a cabal of scientists who are arguing for the sake of arguing; and the second is that the ETS/CPRS is an unnecessray impost on those of us who want to enjoy what we have and may derive in the future. Why should Australians sacrifice their lifestyle when we are a mere gnat on the world stage, how could we possibly be the solution when we aren't the cause? Well go out into that world and see how Australians are already influencing leading edge anything; we have always boxed outside our wieght class , that's what we do, that's what we have always done:- someone saw fit mention our old diggers in the the same sentence as ETS, that was a sully, but the fact is we are a can do nation and hate others telling us we can't.

My concern is right here right now. The weather has gone to stink, drought is no longer followng historical norms, agriculture is dying, I can't turn a hose on when I want and we're surrounded by third world countries who will go to war to survive. The world at large needs new boundaries and focus and I suspect the carbon issue is an evolution of the industrial revolution in readiness for oil reserve depletion.

Why the issue has to be polarised into two camps I don't understand. It's the binary thinking that is damaging debate. It's like being a lover of cars and being branded a heretic for not belonging to either Holden nor Ford. It's not fence sitting, it's freedom of thought and a desire for a solution with minimal inconvenience.

[Romulus]

Wally, I respect your point of view. Human CO2 contribution appears to amount to a human hair in a 1 km tunnel. How is an ETS/CPRS going to help?

[MONSOON]

Wally, I find it very hard to believe a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, unless you have a XP coupe for display purposes only, with all mechanicals send off for recycling.
The Fact is the COST far outweighs any possible benefit, I don't want my children to grow up in poverty(don't try to tell me it won't happen under an ETS, it will), many Australian are already struggling with finances, adding to the price of EVERYTHING will only add to their poverty, only certain already wealthy groups & countries that don't adopt such a scheme are set to benefit,

I am a sceptic, with good reason, there has been far too much deception surrounding the whole climate change crowd, what have they got to hide? the truth? I agree polution is bad, but I don't believe CO2 is polution.

I couldn't have been happier that the senate blocked this lunacy, I hope they continue to do so in future, so my family can look foward to a bright future of prosperity, rather than a future of poverty

[King Nothing]

Wally

Apologies if I've offended you mate, was never my intention. I haven't chosen a path, it's just I see issues with the climate change establishment which need to be addressed before I agree with their findings. Specifically the human influence on global warming vs natural changes, and the actual change itself which I feel has been overstated by the CRU (amongst others) and hence the IPCC report.

As I said, I will support government policy if it is based on proper, rigorous, transparent and unpoliticised science. When the IPCC report, which influences government policy, could potentially be based on weak, unbalanced or misrepresented data/science, then I will not.

Again, my questions above still stand, and if they are answered properly (which to my knowledge have not) and proved to be all above board, then yes I will support the IPCC report and hence some form of government action based on it.

Yes, I believe that we should be reducing pollution (not just CO2, if it is as damaging as claimed).

The examples you cited
Fishing stocks - A function of overfishing, not climate change
Islands inundated by tides - geologists claim geographical changes, not rising seas, are the cause.
Rapid polar deterioration - One side is shrinking, yet the other is expanding for I understand no net change (or possibly a net increase in ice)
Desertification - yes, I agree that is most likely climate change. But how much is man-made?
Social Studies A in the 60s - Wasn't global cooling the prediction back then?

Smart building I find facinating. Ok, my rant was annoyed at being left in the dark, but part of the reason these buildings exist is to reduce CO2 footprint, hence lights turning off. If an ETS was created, more of these buildings would exist. And yes, I recognise that they will get better. But this one isn't fantastic (lights turning off in meetings, toilets, etc).

Again, I will support proper measures (not necessarily an ETS) once the CRU and IPCC reports have been proven to be above board. Right now, there are real questions that need to be answered regarding their conduct and predictions.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by TVS Super Pursuit

Wally, I respect your point of view. Human CO2 contribution appears to amount to a human hair in a 1 km tunnel. How is an ETS/CPRS going to help?

I feel like I'm hijacking the thread, but I'll answer best I can.

I'm not convinced anthropogenic emmissions aren't substantial. There are arguments, for instance, that cow farts (in truth it is 90% burping) are a much larger contributer to preventing solar radiation rebounding back into space and India is the biggest source country because of their huge cattle population. On top of this they are burning huge fossil fuel lockups and will ramp that up as they industrialise. Divide their population into the emmissions and the per capita contribution is probably minor (same with China). Do the same with Oz and we are up there with the big time polluters.

Our largest exports are coal. While we may only get our hands dirty digging it up and shovelling it onto ships, we are complicit in it being converted into heat and gas. Of course if we didn't, someone else would, but at an economic disadvantage to either the alternative source country or the end user. The upshot is dearer cost of production, dearer goods. I guess the thinking is that if goods will be dearer why not grab some of that difference a tax rather than a royalty.

The war cry from the various factions is that we would make ourselves uncompetitive and price ouselves out of the market. That's the one thing that worries me, especially while retaining our lifestyles. It's not that we would be asking for a higher price, but that Australia doesn't feel confident enough to negotiate a better price to cover the impost of a trading scheme.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by King Nothing

Wally

Apologies if I've offended you mate, .........

No I'm not offended, I'm glad for some adult conversation, without it developing into a tease and mud slinging contest.

Actually my Social Stiudies A warned of increasing global temperatures, polution, land and water degradation, and how precarious Australia was in supporting a substantial population. Two hundred years ago a paper was presented to the Royal Society outlining world climate and environmental change, predicated on the industrial revolution. I remember it being discussed in my youth, but I can't for the life of remeber who/what/where. It would be an interesting read I'm sure. Social Studies B focused on the political and it seems the same essence of Australia being disadvantaged because of the tyranny of distance and relatively poor water sheds, hold true today, with few solutions in the intervening years to mitigate the weakness other than build a few dams and dig holes to extract minerals.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Wally

I'm not convinced anthropogenic emmissions aren't substantial. There are arguments, for instance, that cow farts (in truth it is 90% burping) are a much larger contributer to preventing solar radiation rebounding back into space and India is the biggest source country because of their huge cattle population. On top of this they are burning huge fossil fuel lockups and will ramp that up as they industrialise. Divide their population into the emmissions and the per capita contribution is probably minor (same with China). Do the same with Oz and we are up there with the big time polluters.
.

Yes we are, but we're not. There aren't 1 billion plus people in Australia, so as a per capita number we may be high, but as a total number we're in the single low digits for total pollution output. This is where statistics get skewed to put forward any argument suitable for ones agenda.

If it's cattle etc producing the greenhouse gasses why don't we tackle this instead? Maybe if the state governments stopped giving farmers hand-outs go clear land and contribute to land salination, started planting trees and allowed a mature discussion about nuclear engergy we probably wouldnt need to contemplate an ETS.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by MONSOON

Wally, I find it very hard to believe a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, unless you have a XP coupe for display purposes only, with all mechanicals send off for recycling.

Very true, but I'm not sure I'm preaching. I am as guilty as the next petrol head. I drive a whopping big V8, I have the XP with a 302 (but I did fuel inject it) and I'm not afraid to give them a few herbs. On top of that I have several unoccupied properties that draw power continuously, have a dwelling that is far too big that has every energy sapping appliance known to man.

But I am also aware I'm not doing anyone any favours in treating myself to luxuries that would seem obscene to the poor and tree huggers. I'm as guilty as the next man in delaying prudence and abstenance in favour of comfort. That's why I need someone to tell me to pull my head in. I was brought up with grandparents who recycled everything, wasted nothing, saved every spare penny and made do; they aren't around anymore to give me a kick in the ****.

[|||]

when the cold war was on kids were told to duck and cover in the event of a nuclear attack. like a wooden school desk would save them. i think there was even a turtle (or tortoise i'm not sure) in the cartoon who would pull back into his shell when the bomb went off.

nowdays instead of nuclear bombs its all about ETS this and climate change that so maybe those of us who remember duck and cover will see a similar line being used by the world government (cap and trade) which will be about as useful as saving the tropical islands off our coast that so many australians enjoy taking holidays to from being flooded by rising see levels as that little wooden desk was at protecting little sally and timmy from nuclear fallout from the evil commies back in the day.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Wally

It's the politicians in concert with scientists who made the unpopular, but hard decisons to mandate lead free fuels, catalytic converters, and so on; they copped the hysteria from the media and self interest groups and out the back end we, the public benefitted, without handing power to some new world government.

Ok seeing as KN answered most of my other concerns with your other posts, I think this is probably the first, or one of the first, big lies that started us down the GW track.

Think about this, if a post '86 vehicle is caught without a Catalytic converter on the car, which they must have due to the harmful exhaust fumes produced from the "Friendly fuel" and it's ability to reduce carbon emmisions the owner is liable for rather hefty fines, not sure but it's in the thousands from what I know.

Now tell me why all the pre '86 cars that now have no choice but to run this same "firendly fuel" have not been mandated to be retro fitted with catalytic converters and for the maintenance of said converters on the vehicle.

Riddle me that Batman.

Seriously though, the governments and their mates have perpetuated lies and myths since, well since just about forever, if they can somehow make a dollar.

Some time back Keilor cemetary stopped people from making borders around the grave sites of loved, citing OH&S, many other cemetaries did the same, it was not well taken by those who had to remove flower pots and other trinkets left around the graves as markers. They then told you that you could use only an approved site marker/border that could be bought from a particular supplier, only one supplier, guess what, he was a mate of the local councilor who pushed the legislation through.

Anyway my dad went and looked at this border and made his own, when they told him it had to be removed he asked why and they said it was not an approved design. He said well it's exactly the same as the ones your mate sells, the caretaker shut up and left it alone, my ded then went on to make a few more for others that wanted them, at no charge on labor.

Moral is we will get fleeced at every opportunity.

Another quick one for you, not CC or GW, got a phone call yesterday from a collections agency about my Citylink account, forgot to pay and it's now suspended. Anyway she says that a letter was sent out from the solicitors on the 30th of Nov, I was shocked and asked "if I haven't even recieved it then why are you calling me??" she then went on to tell me that I could avoid the $45 collection fee by paying over the phone with my card, I told her to get stuffed and hung up.

Got home, found the notice from Citylink and went in this morning to pay it at Lorimer St, they accepted payment.

p.s. with no late fees or any other fees for collections agencies.

Moral is if you don't ask you won't know.

The two morals are of course intertwined in that they are essentially the same thing, "If you don't know you will get fleeced" and even here where they tell you what's going on, it's the edited truth tht disturbs me most above all else.

No one here denies that we have an impact on our planet, we do however question the tactics they implement in order to make people comply.

Another question for you, if the treaty was so important to Copenhagen then why now are we being told that they (the Labor Government) aren't in any rush and can wait till February for parliament to resume. Why was KRudd threatening a double dissolution election and yet now they say "We could have used it , but we won't".

Why Wall??

I like people having an alternative view it's what makes us think and question even our own beliefs and actually aides us in finding new things when pushed to respond to new "truths".

[Wally]

See now you are heaping everything onto my shoulders as if I was a commy pinko dissident. I'm not sure if you have read what I have posted completely and dispassionately. In other topics I have drawn criticism for my true liberal views. I believe individuals should be left the feck alone to create wealth, wallow in poverty, trip on grave kerbs, etc. Hell I made sure my kids were able to play in mud, bark their knees on bitumen, eat dirt, while do gooders looked on in horror. Of course we have to put rules in place for the idiots and unfortunate who are incapable of looking after themselves and we should have a pool of wealth for health, well being, good governance and infrastucture, that's society. But I hate govt interference in the form of beaurocracy; I hate been told what to do point blank.

OH&S, QA, ****y meta talk, reporting systems, traffic policing, fines, are way over the top and strangling the life out of us. We can't stop and look at Bonnie Doone, because we suffer duck in pond syndrome (expressionless myopic faces while paddling desperately under the surface).

I am just like anyone else. The ETS is largely an unknown, but I fear even without legislation wrapping the scheme into a tidy bundle, we will be hit piece meal and probably a lot less efficiently as it's administered across too many govt platforms and too many depts, each empire building.

In answer to your catalytic converter query, well I can only guess it was too difficult to make retrospective legisilation at the time and there might have been votes lost at the polling booths.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Wally

Wow, that was a marathon read, made harder by my mind wandering off with thoughts of those heretics who lost their lives because they suggested the earth moved around the sun, that germs can cause infection, that animals evolve, that lead cannot be made into gold by alchemists, etc.

Seems to me that if you don't supp at the alter of the climate change deniers you must be a raving maniac with world domination in mind.

It's the politicians in concert with scientists who made the unpopular, but hard decisons to mandate lead free fuels, catalytic converters, and so on; they copped the hysteria from the media and self interest groups and out the back end we, the public benefitted, without handing power to some new world government.

i dont get your angle , what's your point?

[Raptor]

Wally, don't worry about these others, they're not going to change their stripes.

I have to say though the more you post the more I totally agree with your point of view, so your not alone here. As for your old Windsor V8 powered XP, thats just a classic case of recycling ;)

Far better for the environment than all the energy spent making new cars.

Cheers, Rob

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Another question for you, if the treaty was so important to Copenhagen then why now are we being told that they (the Labor Government) aren't in any rush and can wait till February for parliament to resume. Why was KRudd threatening a double dissolution election and yet now they say "We could have used it , but we won't".

Because no politician voluntarily asks a question that they do not already know the answer to......

And the missing word removed from after the word "won't" is WIN.

Despite all the spin the majority of people believe that the whole thing is a scam and the true believers, sir galahads and do gooder idiots, just like the "weekend visitors with the free pamphletts" are politely listened too for a short time and then just ignored.

If an election is held over a new tax for "climate control" that will put up the price of beer, petrol and tickets to the football just so some greeny idiots can be happy then even the hard core will find it difficult to remain party faithful....

They know this, if they did not then there would be a double dissolution.....

[gtfpv]

sorry WALLY i posted without reading further on . you make valid points .
i would likwe to put a little twist on this .
looking to the future imagine we replce technology as we are with electronics . the whole world may become electromagnified, seems like we are replacing shyte with shyte.
aside from this it would be nice to have a cleaner air . but we shouldnt have to make it all more expensive. the world may replace its fueling with another , but why make it much more expensive. this is why i OPPOSE ANY TAX ON IT .

[Wally]

Thanks Rob, I feel like a bit of a dinosaur

I wondering if people stopped to think about their allocation of air and the land under it as a biosphere, how they would feel about somebody polluting it, warming it up, devegitating it and generally spoiling it .

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by Wally

I wondering if people stopped to think about their allocation of air and the land under it as a biosphere, how they would feel about somebody polluting it, warming it up, devegitating it and generally spoiling it .

We've been saying all along we DO care about that. Numerous people have said they are all for doing their bit for the environment. But it's plain to see there is more to the ETS than saving the world from climate change, it would be naive to think otherwise. It's basically replacing oil and commodities and natural resources as the biggest trading money maker in the world, difference is carbon trading is all made out of a scare campaign.