Al Gore must be unhappy about this--ummm Maybe not, He already has his, we are the ones paying for the loss

He's got problems.  First the wife goes, now his stock falls.  What next?
From American Thinker blog:

Money for Nothin'

by Randy Fardal

Why are welfare queens sent to prison while eco-capitalists buy mansions? It appears that the carbon credit trading exchange some eco-capitalists sold just a few months ago for $634.5M is now worthless. According to the Financial Times:

The owner of the US’s only nationwide cap-and-trade market has signaled the death of the seven-year-old industry, saying companies were no longer interested in trading carbon emissions credits in the absence of government legislation.

Virtually nothing the eco-capitalists produce creates wealth for society, including their carbon exchanges. They are not participating in free-market capitalism; it’s just parasitic political capitalism. And since most of what they do is based on the AGW scam, one could argue that many of them are guilty of misrepresentation or outright fraud.

Meanwhile, the buyer at the other end of this transaction, Intercontinental Exchange, apparently lost a half-billion-dollar bet that the carbon-taxing Democrats would retain control of the House in the 2010 elections. That’s fine; ICE is a profitable private sector company that took a calculated risk, and whose losses will be borne by its shareholders. Because of pending Democratic legislation, that risk had potentially great rewards -- perhaps even “windfall profits” -- so it’s unlikely that shareholders now blame the company’s executives for malfeasance.

But taxpayers indirectly cover about a third of the shareholders’ losses. Because ICE’s overall business is profitable, its losses on the climate exchange reduce its tax liability.

[....]

Bottom line: Taxpayers will have to cover about a third of the total $655-660M bet that ICE lost on its Climate Exchange acquisition. Can the leftists be happy about that? After all, the added government revenue would have paid for a large portion of Nancy Pelosi’s taxpayer-funded private jet.

Read it all, it is all part of the big Global Warming scam.

We've Been Had - Feeling that Global Warming Pressure

Watts Up With That has the story.
BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

The IPCC is now damaged goods. Pachauri is toast, and nobody will be able to cite the IPCC AR4 again without this being brought up.

The Daily Mail’s David Rose in the UK broke this story, it is mind boggling fraud to prod “government action” and grants. Emphasis in red mine.

From the Daily Mail:

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

Folks, this has cost a fortune of OUR money, from all the scientists who used this scam to get grants, change our laws, our school books, plus who knows what else. Our whole way of thinking has been changed as a shrewd political power grab by those who want to change our way of living by the luddites and neo-luddites,  The Greenies.

Professor of meteorology at MIT Speaks Out

in the the Wall Street Journal

The Climate Science Isn't Settled
Confident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.
By RICHARD S. LINDZEN

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

There is much more, so go here to read all the details.

A Rearranged Top Ten List of Scams

TigerHawk blog on
Ranking the Scam
By Escort81

Almost exactly six years ago, Guardian writer Tim Radford selected his top ten list of "all-time favourite science scams," credibly headed by the Piltdown man mystery.

Whether or not the planet is warming, cooling, or staying about the same, and whether or not modern human activity contributes significantly to any changes in climate, it seems to me that ClimateGate is a much bigger scandal than anything on Radford's list. The scope of the academic dishonesty is remarkable -- the disregard for the long-accepted practices of the scientific method with respect to legitimate peer review, the self-serving thumb-on-the-scale grant money grab, and the audacity to propose and insist that the now-compromised climate models be used to re-engineer the global economy at a cost of trillions of dollars, all make Piltdown man seem minor by comparison. I think we have a new Number One. The CRU people might be lucky to get new jobs as professional wrestling referees.

I should add that I basically agree with TigerHawk's implied position that it is entirely possible that the activities of 6.8 billion people may well have an impact on the climate. It is observable that more densely populated areas experience environmental changes during growth, so if humans can locally alter the ground and the flow of water, it may be premature to rule out the notion that we can't or don't alter the climate. We are apparently not at a point, however, where the "science is settled."
The U.S. has compelling national security reasons to reduce its dependence upon foreign oil, probably leading to the development of non-fossil fuel alternative energy sources. I will continue to be a thrifty, skin-flinty Yankee, keeping the house cool in the winter and warm in the summer, and generally try not to be wasteful. Of course, I do so out of choice, with no real desire to compel anyone else to conform to my habits, which disqualifies me from becoming a Gorebot.

Every scam requires a mark -- in the case of Piltdown man, it was principally the curators of the Natural History Museum in London, where the skull was on display for four decades -- so the question remains, why are so many well-educated elites willing to swallow the entirety of AGW whole?