I'm on parliamentary expenses. I'll take a couple for my PPS's but I really need the delux diplomat 5 cu m icemaker model. Can you give me a receipt for that and throw in the others? My PPA's are really keen to make sacrifices. I'll be helping them. The refunds will come in handy for constituency contingencies. I can do cash if you like.
from the second page of comments on the Booker article:
- "Just looked at the Google ads at the bottom of this piece. The one I have says: 'Carbon Credit investment - Are you interested in Trading Carbon Credits for 300%+ returns'" Hmmm..... Interesting! Think I'll look into that. -
in Australia, the Google ads below the Booker piece are:
Bring the Bush Back Native trees create carbon credits and remediate the Aussie landscape. www.co2australia.com.au
Carbon Reduction Label To be launched in 2010 Australian Specialists www.greenchip.com.au
Origin Gas & Electricity Join Australia's Number One Green Energy Provider. Find Out More Here www.OriginEnergy.com.au
Google's advocacy of CAGW/CO2 trading continues unashamed and unabated.
My names Charity. I'm on benefits. I've got some friends from abroad I'm putting up right now. Have you got ten in stock? We'll destroy them. Take my word for it. We always follow government advice to the letter. That'll be a brown one then. Thanks. 'Scuse my curiosity, you making commission on these?..(whisper).. Wow!
Wasn't there a Kurt Vonnegut story with a farmer who was paid by the government not to grow a particular crop? He was so successful at this that he continued to buy more land so he could not grow the crop on that either.
Booker - "But a by-product of this process is HCF-23, which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2"
Given that no one to my knowledge has experimentally verified the CO2 feedback mechanisms, who has come up with this figure of 11,700. Why not 11,600; 11,715...? How on earth have they calculated (observed ..er ..no) it.
I'm sure it was crops. I'm just not sure if it was Kurt Vonnegut who wrote it, or if was in Catch-22?
Thinking about the crop theme, I'm pondering a new business scheme whereby I buy tracts of 3rd world rainforest and then threaten to clear-fell it unless I am paid a ransom by concerned Greens. I'd then use some of the money to buy more rainforest to do the same thing with.
It's a win-win situation. I get filthy rich and the Greens get to save the forest (and their immortal Green souls)
The Google ads that appear on a web page are chosen by a google algorithm.
The advertiser chooses keywords that he thinks are relevant to his business and the algorithm shows the ads if those keywords appear on the page.
The advertiser pays Google each time a website visitor clicks on an advert. Usually just a few pence per click (eg 3p) for these kind of ads. Google gives some of this money to the website owner.
The website owner can block some advertisers (eg a competitor) from appearing on his pages if he chooses. The advertiser can choose not to show the adverts on selected websites (eg computer dating company may have "dating" as a keyword but decide not to show adverts on a website about carbon dating) - again only if he chooses to not appear.
A mixture of laziness and ignorance means that companies set up these advertising campaigns but never monitor results and fail to spot that they are maybe spending £30 per day to subsidise WUWT and get clicks from skeptics.
Last time I looked at Climate Audit I only saw "house adverts" - the public service adverts that Google shows when the website owner has blocked everything he doesn't want on his site.
I remember a storyline about someone being paid not to farm coming near the end of "The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail" in Robert A Heinlein's mid 70's novel "Time Enough for Love".
I remember a storyline about someone being paid not to farm coming near the end of "The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail" in Robert A Heinlein's mid 70's novel "Time Enough for Love".
You might want to take some leads from the WWF who have worked this idea of yours to a whole new level.
Seems the idea is to "protect" tracts of Amazon which would otherwise be left alone, e.g. the real remote inaccessible areas on steep slopes etc. where it would be cost prohibitive for the loggers to work.
This way you can rake in the carbon credits, please the concerned Greens, without upsetting the status quo, or without actually doing anything, you don't even need to buy the land in the first place! Maybe you could use the carbon credits to bribe buy logging rights from local gov officials to more inaccessible impossible to clear forest, and spread the scheme far and wide eventually protecting all the tree no-one can get at!
Comment 181. SimonH Says: August 29th, 2010 at 2:56 pm "............. But it’s important to note that it is the gusto of the alarmist message, not the message itself, which is raising eyebrows.
I really feel that climate alarmists have drastically worn their platform down by their own hand. It is difficult, now, to regard climate alarmism – by whichever name it prefers to pass – as anything more than raw climatic hypochondria.
You need to appreciate the extent of weariness with which new pronouncements of imminent “death”, on the basis of a hiccup or a sneeze, are received when the news giver has allowed himself – by a concerted campaign of his own making – to become regarded as a hypochondriac. ................."
Reader Comments (14)
But don't carbon offsets make everything sane?
I'm on parliamentary expenses. I'll take a couple for my PPS's but I really need the delux diplomat 5 cu m icemaker model. Can you give me a receipt for that and throw in the others? My PPA's are really keen to make sacrifices. I'll be helping them. The refunds will come in handy for constituency contingencies. I can do cash if you like.
from the second page of comments on the Booker article:
- "Just looked at the Google ads at the bottom of this piece. The one I have says:
'Carbon Credit investment - Are you interested in Trading Carbon Credits for 300%+ returns'"
Hmmm..... Interesting!
Think I'll look into that. -
in Australia, the Google ads below the Booker piece are:
Bring the Bush Back
Native trees create carbon credits and remediate the Aussie landscape.
www.co2australia.com.au
Carbon Reduction Label
To be launched in 2010 Australian Specialists
www.greenchip.com.au
Origin Gas & Electricity
Join Australia's Number One Green Energy Provider. Find Out More Here
www.OriginEnergy.com.au
Google's advocacy of CAGW/CO2 trading continues unashamed and unabated.
My names Charity. I'm on benefits. I've got some friends from abroad I'm putting up right now. Have you got ten in stock? We'll destroy them. Take my word for it. We always follow government advice to the letter. That'll be a brown one then. Thanks. 'Scuse my curiosity, you making commission on these?..(whisper).. Wow!
Wasn't there a Kurt Vonnegut story with a farmer who was paid by the government not to grow a particular crop? He was so successful at this that he continued to buy more land so he could not grow the crop on that either.
Booker - "But a by-product of this process is HCF-23, which is supposed to be 11,700 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2"
Given that no one to my knowledge has experimentally verified the CO2 feedback mechanisms, who has come up with this figure of 11,700. Why not 11,600; 11,715...? How on earth have they calculated (observed ..er ..no) it.
Jerry
Perhaps you are thinking of not pig farming. http://www.fmft.net/archives/004255.html
Philip Bratby
I'm sure it was crops. I'm just not sure if it was Kurt Vonnegut who wrote it, or if was in Catch-22?
Thinking about the crop theme, I'm pondering a new business scheme whereby I buy tracts of 3rd world rainforest and then threaten to clear-fell it unless I am paid a ransom by concerned Greens. I'd then use some of the money to buy more rainforest to do the same thing with.
It's a win-win situation. I get filthy rich and the Greens get to save the forest (and their immortal Green souls)
@pat
The Google ads that appear on a web page are chosen by a google algorithm.
The advertiser chooses keywords that he thinks are relevant to his business and the algorithm shows the ads if those keywords appear on the page.
The advertiser pays Google each time a website visitor clicks on an advert. Usually just a few pence per click (eg 3p) for these kind of ads. Google gives some of this money to the website owner.
The website owner can block some advertisers (eg a competitor) from appearing on his pages if he chooses.
The advertiser can choose not to show the adverts on selected websites (eg computer dating company may have "dating" as a keyword but decide not to show adverts on a website about carbon dating) - again only if he chooses to not appear.
A mixture of laziness and ignorance means that companies set up these advertising campaigns but never monitor results and fail to spot that they are maybe spending £30 per day to subsidise WUWT and get clicks from skeptics.
Last time I looked at Climate Audit I only saw "house adverts" - the public service adverts that Google shows when the website owner has blocked everything he doesn't want on his site.
Jerry
I remember a storyline about someone being paid not to farm coming near the end of "The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail" in Robert A Heinlein's mid 70's novel "Time Enough for Love".
Jerry
I remember a storyline about someone being paid not to farm coming near the end of "The Tale of the Man Who Was Too Lazy to Fail" in Robert A Heinlein's mid 70's novel "Time Enough for Love".
@Jerry
You might want to take some leads from the WWF who have worked this idea of yours to a whole new level.
Seems the idea is to "protect" tracts of Amazon which would otherwise be left alone, e.g. the real remote inaccessible areas on steep slopes etc. where it would be cost prohibitive for the loggers to work.
This way you can rake in the carbon credits, please the concerned Greens, without upsetting the status quo, or without actually doing anything, you don't even need to buy the land in the first place! Maybe you could use the carbon credits to
bribebuy logging rights from local gov officials to more inaccessible impossible to clear forest, and spread the scheme far and wide eventually protecting all the tree no-one can get at!I stuffed the link to the WWF shenanigans :¬p
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search/label/WWF
Climate Hypochondria - instead of Climate Alarmism.....!
cartton for Josh perhaps..
http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/08/20/the-brushback/
Comment 181.
SimonH Says:
August 29th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
"............. But it’s important to note that it is the gusto of the alarmist message, not the message itself, which is raising eyebrows.
I really feel that climate alarmists have drastically worn their platform down by their own hand. It is difficult, now, to regard climate alarmism – by whichever name it prefers to pass – as anything more than raw climatic hypochondria.
You need to appreciate the extent of weariness with which new pronouncements of imminent “death”, on the basis of a hiccup or a sneeze, are received when the news giver has allowed himself – by a concerted campaign of his own making – to become regarded as a hypochondriac. ................."