Global Warming Summitt Declared a Failure

"The meeting was a disaster,” Lars-Erik Liljelund, the director general of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s office, said in an interview today. “The process needs to be changed because if we continue like this, we won’t be any further a year from now."

The "unprecedented meeting", as President Obama pronounced, has yielded a major blow as the treaty is tabled for a year. Maybe we'll get some more e-mails public to prove that this is the greatest hoax in the history of science.

More from the Bloomberg article:

Rich countries offered to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations reduce carbon emissions, which is conditional on developing countries cutting gas discharges, according to the text. They may also pay out $30 billion in aid from next year through 2012.

“In terms of finance, it is vague, it is a big soup,” Pa Ousman Jarju, a Gambian delegate, said in an interview in Copenhagen. “It’s well below what is required.”


Well BELOW what is required -- got that. $30 billion NOW and $100 billion in ten years is simply NOT ENOUGH CASH for Gambia and other countries.


What did Obama say?

The agreement was reached after President Barack Obama had last-minute talks with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South African President, Jacob Zuma in Copenhagen today. It was then taken to all nations and most backed it. -- from the article



Scientific fallacy!?!?!

Nations should try to keep the global temperature increase before industrialization “below 2 degrees” Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the agreement. Envoys from the U.S., Europe and China have supported the 2 degrees target. Poorer nations and environmental groups wanted 1 or 1.5 degrees, fearing a higher increase will raise sea levels and make coastal cities and some island states uninhabitable.


How carbon does it take to raise or lower the earth's temperature? This is the most absurd aspect of the global warming hysterical fear mongers. Within the last several months for example, we've discovered enormous algae beds that consume 10% of the world's Carbon dioxide. Moreover, these computer models predicting the elevated sea levels etc...still haven't explained (or been recalculated) for the decline in temperatures.


Dr. William Gray, who has predicted an active hurricane season in 2010, has denounced global warming hysteria as "indoctrination" and "one-sided".

From the press release: he warned that 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the past 25 years.

These e-mails are not the only question by skeptics, it's the straw breaking the camel's back. For years the IPCC has ignored amazing parallels in solar activity and previous warming patterns. Ice thinning in the arctic is being countered by the thickening and expansion in the Antarctic. The computer models are full of extreme worse case scenarios and treated as fact instead of a hypothesis.




http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6ailZ7R9TGc

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2224184

Accounting for the Truth

Bank profits drive the stock market faster than other industry stocks like manufacturing. This is one reason while the banking collapse corresponded and drive the Wall Street nose dive.


So one question that has troubled me greatly is how quickly the banks have recovered from their meltdown.


I have read a few economists and heard some reference to accounting changes that now project profits for these banks that still owe the government billions.


Yalman Onaran wrote this on Bloomberg.com, compiling the inside quotes and analysis that I've been searching for: (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=alC3LxSjomZ8):

"Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are. "

Accounting rule changes?

"Citigroup’s $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. “The big banks’ profits were totally bogus,” says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. “The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They’re all part of a major effort to put lipstick on a pig.”


In this article (http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/big-bank-profits-are-bogus-massive-public-deception-33228) Weiss really covers the shady books of pumping up the "toxic assets", moving their horrible performances from quarter to quarter, and the real meaning of "credit value adjustment."

From Onaran's piece:

"Further deterioration of loans will eventually force banks to recognize losses that their bookkeeping lets them ignore for now, says David Sherman, an accounting professor at Northeastern University in Boston. Janet Tavakoli, president of Tavakoli Structured Finance Inc. in Chicago, says the government stress scenarios underestimate how bad the economy may get."

One area that they are referring to is the collapse of the commercial real estate market. Businesses are closing in strip malls at a rapid pace and lendors are getting stuck with bad loans.

"Banks are writing off commercial real estate loans now at a bigger rate than in the last 20 years," said Kathy Boyle, president of Chapin Hill Advisors in New York. "It's a double-whammy. Banks have another shoe to drop on their balance sheets, and regional banks tend to have a much bigger exposure."

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan now have political allies and ties to government policy to help shield them from the pending collapse. How can we evaluate the Stock Market without talking about politics? How can a company such as Citigroup report a profit yet owe the government, the taxpayers - you and me - 50 billion dollars?

The FDIC is running out of funds to bailout banks. But we can rest assured this isn't over. We can try to avoid the large corporate banks with the local choice, but their smaller capital makes them more vulnerable to collapse.

I don't know that I have answers, but I feel closer to asking the right questions and getting names of the economists asking similar questions.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/32085576

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20090920_More_bank_failures_are_likely.html