Recommended Post
Marlo Lewis: July 24, 2009: Is the Climate Science Debate Over? No, It’s Just Getting Very, Very Interesting (with welcome news for mankind)
Most Read Posts
Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain) 10,978 Views (Chip Knappenberger)
Joseph Romm and Enron: For the Record 3,079 Views (Rob Bradley)
Smart Grid, Dumb Economics 2,361 Views (Jerry Taylor)
Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (Part II)—Global Sign-Up 2,165 Views (Chip Knappenberger)
Is the Climate Science Debate Over? No, It’s Just Getting Very, Very Interesting (with welcome news for mankind) 1,780 Views (Marlo Lewis)
Climate Alarmism Bullying: L’affaire Schmidt (new) … L’affaire Wigley (old) 1,701 Views (Rob Bradley)
The New MIT Climate Study: A Real World Inversion? 1,496 Views (Chip Knappenberger)
CO2 Regulation under the Clean Air Act: Economic Train Wreck, Constitutional Crisis, Legislative Thuggery 1,296 Views (Marlo Lewis)
Most Active Posts
Is the Climate Science Debate Over?…
Continue ReadingThe Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) plans to issue a “revised” report on the role of speculation in the recently concluded oil price boom, reversing last year’s conclusion that such betting was not a major factor relative to underlying physical fundamentals. The CFTC’s interim report concluded last year that “current oil prices and the increase in oil prices between January 2003 and June 2008 are largely due to fundamental supply and demand factors.”
The reversal is said to reflect better data on who was actually in the market, including evidence that some traders had massive positions. But clearly the political bent of the leadership has changed as well, especially after the credit derivatives fiasco last year.
Political Risk As a Fundamental
Without question, commodity indices and other similar funds have allowed a lot of capital to flow into the market, and the fundamentals would not seem to justify prices reaching $147 per barrel.…
Continue ReadingThe American Clean Energy and Security Act, better known as the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill, has been shown to be completely ineffective at slowing the rise in global temperature that is projected by climate models to accompany mankind’s continued reliance on fossil fuels for energy production. And this, despite the bill’s mandated cut-back of U.S. greenhouse gases emissions by a whopping 83% below 2005’s levels by the year 2050. As the primary purpose of the bill is to mitigate “global warming” and any follow-on impacts, Waxman-Markey, on its own, would seem an abject failure.
If you need any more proof, consider the bill’s effect on projected sea level rise. Recall that the specter of rapid sea level rise is one of the pillars of alarmist claims for impending climate catastrophe and calls for immediate action.…
Continue Reading