Barclays CLOSES Its Carbon Trading Desk In the US

[westwall]

Yeah, Barclays has figured out that carbon trading is pretty much dead here in the US so has pulled stakes and fled back to Europe.

A major European bank closed its US carbon trading business this week in a sign that 2012 is a "make-or-break" year for cap-and-trade programs designed to fight climate change.

London-based Barclays determined the US carbon market, currently comprised of a handful of states, is too small to justify the expense of a dedicated trading desk in New York, according to sources familiar with the decision. Barclays was a major player in US greenhouse-gas trading programs on the East and West coasts and remains active in Europe's carbon market, the largest in the world. Seth Martin, a Barclays spokesman, declined to comment.


Barclays Closes US Carbon Desk In Latest Cap And Trade Setback

 

[Zander]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UhvN0k74w]REM Its the End of the World R.E.M. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

 

[bripat9643]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

What do you imagine that would prove?

 

[westwall]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

Loser!

 

[konradv]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

What do you imagine that would prove?

I don't know, that you're an idiot and just posted about the stupidest question ever on a science forum.

 

[konradv]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

Loser!

Seems all the high intellects are out today!

 

[bripat9643]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

What do you imagine that would prove?

I don't know, that you're an idiot and just posted about the stupidest question ever on a science forum.

What is stupid is your belief that the theorem about conservation of energy proves anything about global warming. It would make just as much sense to claim Newton's theory gravity proved global warming was true.

 

[konradv]

What do you imagine that would prove?

I don't know, that you're an idiot and just posted about the stupidest question ever on a science forum.

What is stupid is your belief that the theorem about conservation of energy proves anything about global warming. It would make just as much sense to claim Newton's theory gravity proved global warming was true.

I stand corrected, second stupidest!

 

[skookerasbil]

Yup..........well...........Ive been saying for a long time on here now that the "consensus" assholes are losing...........and they're losing in epic fashion.

Nobody but nobody gives a rats ass about global warming anymore. Its is firmly at the top of the American publics yawn list!!!

The environmental nutters argument serves one purpose in 2012...........to try to keep alive a totally lost cause. Their efforts here have the relevance of a group exercise in navel contemplation.

http://navelcontemplation.blogspot.com/2006/06/your-breath-stinks.html

 

[konradv]

Yup..........well...........Ive been saying for a long time on here now that the "consensus" assholes are losing...........and they're losing in epic fashion.

Nobody but nobody gives a rats ass about global warming anymore. Its is firmly at the top of the American publics yawn list!!!

The environmental nutters argument serves one purpose in 2012...........to try to keep alive a totally lost cause. Their efforts here have the relevance of a group exercise in navel contemplation.

Seems like everyone's going for the record!

 

[skookerasbil]

Yup..........well...........Ive been saying for a long time on here now that the "consensus" assholes are losing...........and they're losing in epic fashion.

Nobody but nobody gives a rats ass about global warming anymore. Its is firmly at the top of the American publics yawn list!!!

The environmental nutters argument serves one purpose in 2012...........to try to keep alive a totally lost cause. Their efforts here have the relevance of a group exercise in navel contemplation.

Seems like everyone's going for the record!

Indeed............and when it gets right down to it, it only matters who is winning the PR war. Over the last several years, the bomb throwers are getting decimated. They just cant get that they are doing it wrong.

 

[code1211]

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Solved that Conservation of Energy question yet?

Hello. Not a physicist here. The Conservation of Energy in physics seems to be a pretty simple idea that is explained in terms and concepts that are very complex. I went to Wiki and lifted the blurb below.

Is this a fair explanation of what it is? If it is, the term "isolated system" comes up a couple times and our biosphere is not isolated.

The Sun, it seems, provides variable amounts of incoming radiation and if that is interupted, decreased or changed even briefly by the tilt of the planet or an eclipse, the temperature drops measurably.

Longer interruptions can contribute ice age glaciation.

Again, not a physicist, but are you sure that this applies to a system that is constantly receiving and losing energy?

<snip>
Conservation of energy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the law of conservation of energy in physics. For sustainable energy resources, see Energy conservation.



Prof. Walter Lewin demonstrates the conservation of mechanical energy, touching a wrecking ball with his jaw. (MIT Course 8.01)[1]
The nineteenth century law of conservation of energy is a law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The total energy is said to be conserved over time. For an isolated system, this law means that energy can change its location within the system, and that it can change form within the system, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy, but that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In the nineteenth century, mass and energy were considered as being of quite different natures.
Since Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that energy has an equivalent mass (see mass in special relativity), and mass has an equivalent energy, one speaks of a law of conservation of mass-energy as an updated version of the nineteenth century law. All particles, both massive such as protons and massless such as photons, respectively have energy and mass equivalents.
The total mass and the total energy of a system may both be respectively defined in special relativity, but for each, its conservation law holds. Particles, both ponderable and imponderable, are subject to interconversions of form, in both creation and annihilation. Nevertheless, in an isolated system, conservation of total energy and conservation of total mass each holds as a separate law.
A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that no intended "perpetual motion machine" can perpetually deliver energy to its surroundings.
<snip>

 

[konradv]

Yup..........well...........Ive been saying for a long time on here now that the "consensus" assholes are losing...........and they're losing in epic fashion.

Nobody but nobody gives a rats ass about global warming anymore. Its is firmly at the top of the American publics yawn list!!!

The environmental nutters argument serves one purpose in 2012...........to try to keep alive a totally lost cause. Their efforts here have the relevance of a group exercise in navel contemplation.

Seems like everyone's going for the record!

Indeed............and when it gets right down to it, it only matters who is winning the PR war. Over the last several years, the bomb throwers are getting decimated. They just cant get that they are doing it wrong.

An admission, it seems, that this is a political, rather than scientific, battle by the skeptics/deniers. I find it hypocritical that they STEAL people's PRIVATE emails discussing the S/DS' tactics and then accuse the victims of their crimes of the very same things they've been doing all along. It stopped being about science long ago, because neither it nor logic are on their side.

 

[skookerasbil]

Seems like everyone's going for the record!

Indeed............and when it gets right down to it, it only matters who is winning the PR war. Over the last several years, the bomb throwers are getting decimated. They just cant get that they are doing it wrong.

An admission, it seems, that this is a political, rather than scientific, battle by the skeptics/deniers. I find it hypocritical that they STEAL people's PRIVATE emails discussing the S/DS' tactics and then accuse the victims of their crimes of the very same things they've been doing all along. It stopped being about science long ago, because neither it nor logic are on their side.

Thats right..........and thank God for that!! The fcukkers perpetuating this haox would have been responsible for taking my electric bill from $300/month to $600/ month here in the Northeast. But Crap and Tax of officially dead.

Fuck them!!!


I couldnt be laughing any harder!!!!!!!

 

[bripat9643]

What is stupid is your belief that the theorem about conservation of energy proves anything about global warming. It would make just as much sense to claim Newton's theory gravity proved global warming was true.

I stand corrected, second stupidest!

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

 

[konradv]

What is stupid is your belief that the theorem about conservation of energy proves anything about global warming. It would make just as much sense to claim Newton's theory gravity proved global warming was true.

I stand corrected, second stupidest!

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

 

[skookerasbil]

I stand corrected, second stupidest!

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

Nobody cares about CO2 anymore. Only the lefty internet OCD's havent got the memo.

 

[konradv]

In other words, you can't explain what it proves.

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

Nobody cares about CO2 anymore. Only the lefty internet OCD's havent got the memo.

That's not proof, either!

 

[skookerasbil]

Speak for yourself. YOU need to prove that extra CO2 won't trap more IR, thereby raising temps.

Nobody cares about CO2 anymore. Only the lefty internet OCD's havent got the memo.

That's not proof, either!

Exactly my point s0n...........its all about the proof and in recent years the public perception is that one side has failed in epic fashion.