A good analysis by blogger JoNova of Australian PM Kevin Rudd’s push for a carbon market. An excerpt:
The world is considering a new financial market larger than any commodity, it’s “based on science”, but if you ask for evidence, you’re called names — “Denier”, and by our Prime Minister, no less. This is supposed to pass for reasoned debate?
In 6000 words Rudd uses ad hominem attacks, baseless allegations, argument from authority, mindless inflammatory rhetoric and quotes not a single piece of evidence that carbon drives our climate. He repeats quote after quote of sensible, ordinary points from his opponents as if it shows they are confused. Yet he can’t point out how any of them are wrong. It shows the depth of his own delusions — that he thinks merely questioning “the UN committee” is a flaw in itself.
It’s as if being a sceptic is a bad thing, yet the opposite of sceptical is gullible.
Rudd throws baseless innuendo when he claims vested interests are at work. The truth is the exact opposite. Exxon spent $23 million on sceptics, but the US government spent $79 billion on the climate industry. Big Government outspent big-oil 3000 to 1. Worse, carbon trading last year was $126 billion dollars. That’s for just one year. The real vested interests stand in the open like signposted black holes hidden in plain view by a legal disclaimer. The singularities at the centre of the climate change galaxy have names like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, ABN Amro, Deutche Bank, and HSBC.
The banks . . . want us to trade carbon.
And the career scientists like their “rock-star” status. “Call us heroes”. “Thanks for the institute. Ta.”
The UN bureaucrats soak in their fame and their junkets. Why wouldn’t they? Two weeks and ten thousand people in an exotic locale every year. Nobel prizes for just doing their jobs, and the promise that they might be at the centre of new world financial market: dinner with Obama and tea with Gordon Brown. Status knocks, and everyone is home.
The rest here.