Fannie Mae, Cantor Fitzgerald in global warming carbon trading scheme similar to sub prime mortgages

• WHERE ARE THE REPUBLICANS AND INDEPENDENTS?
  
• WHERE IS ANYBODY?

"When he wasn't busy helping create a $127 billion mess for taxpayers to clean up, former Fannie Mae Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines, two of his top underlings and select individuals in

• the "green" movement were inventing a patented system to
  
• trade residential carbon credits.

Patent No. 6904336 was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 -- the day after Democrats took control of Congress....

It wasn't about mortgages. It was about greenbacks. The patent, which Fannie Mae confirmed

• it still owns with Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiary CO2e.com,
  

gives the mortgage giant a lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus also giving it a

• major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation.

Besides Raines, the other "inventors" are:

* Former Fannie Vice President and Deputy General Counsel G. Scott Lesmes, who provided legal advice on Fannie Mae's debt and equity offerings;

* Former Fannie Vice President Robert Sahadi, who now runs GreenSpace Investment Financial Services out of his 5,002-square-foot Clarksburg home;

* 2008 Barack Obama fundraiser Kenneth Berlin, an environmental law partner at Skadden Arps;

* Michelle Desiderio, director of the National Green Building Certification program, which trains "green" monitors;

Former Cantor Fitzgerald employee Elizabeth Arner Cavey, wife of Democratic donor Brian Cavey of the Stanton Park Group, which received $200,000 last year to lobby on climate change legislation; and

* Jane Bartels, widow of former CO2e.com CEO Carlton Bartels. Three weeks before Carlton Bartels was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks,

• he filed for another patent on the software used in 2003
  
• to set up the Chicago Climate Exchange.

The patent, which covers both the "cap" and "trade" parts of Obama's top domestic energy initiation, gives Fannie Mae proprietary control over an automated trading system that pools and sells credits for hard-to-quantify residential carbon reduction efforts (such as solar panels and high-efficiency appliances) to companies and utilities that don't meet emission reduction targets. Depending on where the Environmental Protection Agency sets arbitrary CO2 standards, that could be every company in America.

• The patent summary describes how carbon "and other pollutants yet to be determined" would be "combined into a single emissions pool" and traded -- just as Fannie's toxic portfolio of subprime mortgages were.

"Fannie Mae earns no money on this patent," communications director Amy Bonitatibus told the Washington Examiner.

• "We can't conjecture as to the cap-and-trade legislation."

But passage of the legislation would create an artificial, government-mandated,

• trillion-dollar carbon trading market that would drive up the price of energy, indirectly
  

• making housing more expensive.

If the proprietary emissions trading system functions like other exchanges such as the New York Stock Exchange, which makes most of its revenue on listing and trading fees, its owners could see extremely generous profits, especially with a

• patent that keeps out competition for two decades.

So Fannie Mae, a quasi-governmental entity whose congressionally mandated mission is to make housing more affordable, has been a behind-the-scenes participant in a carbon trading scheme that would do just the opposite.

• In January, Europol announced that up to 90 percent of the volume in the European Union's own carbon-trading market was fraudulent, costing EU members $5 billion during the previous 18 months.
  
• That would be just the tip of the iceberg if the Congress were to make a similar mistake.

But if it does, thanks to Raines and his fellow "inventors," Fannie Mae will be laughing all the way to the (bailed-out) bank."

• "Fannie Mae owns patent on residential cap and trade exchange," Washington Examiner, Hollingsworth, 4/20/10, via Climate Depot

• "The $10 trillion climate fraud," 4/28/10, IBD editorial

"Green" fat cats at BBC take 68,000 air flights while lecturing others to take the train nor not go

"The BBC has spent almost £5million on flying its directors, staff and guests around Britain, it has been revealed.

• Despite the corporation’s pledge to be more environmentally friendly, the licence-fee payer has funded almost 100 short-haul flights a day for BBC staff - a massive 68,000 plane trips over the past two years.

And BBC chiefs have been among the biggest culprits for making these journeys - despite an internal report stating that staff will be encouraged ‘to use rail rather than air wherever that is feasible’.

• Director general Mark Thompson, who earns £834,000 a year, took 16 internal flights including one to Newcastle from London to attend a Conservative Party reception, and a flight from London to Glasgow to attend a concert.

Mark Byford, deputy director general, flew from Southampton to Edinburgh to watch an England vs Scotland rugby match.

• Mr Byford, who earns £471,000 a year, also took a flight from London to Manchester - a trip which takes less than three hours by train - to attend the Open golf championship in Birkdale."...

from Daily Mail Online, "Green BBC spends 5 million pounds flying directors around Britain," 4/25/10, via Tom Nelson

ClimateGate review 'funded by University of East Anglia' and therefore not an independent study

• BBC: "The review has been funded by UEA"...

That fact doesn't preoccupy the BBC.

• How would they view an oil company funding and staffing an 'independent review' of its own claim forcing a multi-trillion dollar global industry, the overtaking of governments, citizens, and families in perpetuity?

The BBC and the panel are in full knowledge that much CRU data has been lost or thrown out. Obviously all current data is therefore invalid. Is it not either insane or criminally complicit to avoid this conclusion? Who will speak up for the people in this huge fraud? Following, the BBC ignores all of this.

• BBC: "But the BBC understands the panel has taken a hard look at CRU methodology.

It is thought to have focused on statistical methods used by the CRU and the way uncertainties inherent in climate science may have been down-played by government bodies."...

• from 4/13/10 report, "'Climategate' panel set to report" by Roger Harrabin

BBC: "The second of three reviews into hacked climate e-mails from the University of East Anglia (UEA) is set to be released later.

It has examined scientific papers published over 20 years by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the heart of the e-mail controversy."...

• To the BBC: No. They may have some papers going back 20 years, but it is a matter of record that they have lost or discarded many as you note in this article. Missing data cannot be reviewed for accuracy.
  

BBC, continuing: "The panel was nominated by the Royal Society, and climate sceptics forecast it would defend establishment science.

• But the BBC understands the panel has taken a hard look at CRU methodology.

• It is thought to have focued on statistical methods used by the CRU and the way uncertainties inherent in climate science may have been down-played by government bodies."

To the BBC: Why wouldn't the BBC want to establish a judge's credentials? Why would you dismiss that crucial task and ascribe its interest to a group you see as fringe 'sceptics?' You rely on "understanding" and "thought" rather than fact on this issue. Why should anyone accept that? Why do you even have a job?

BBC: continuing: "Global picture

The review has been funded by UEA and chaired by Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and industry scientist.

The chair has been challenged over his other interests. Lord Oxburgh is currently president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association and chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables.

Critics say clean energy companies would benefit from policies to tackle climate change. But Lord Oxburgh insists the panel did not have a pre-conceived view. "

• To the BBC: That's enough for you, that the judge says he's ok, so it's ok with you?
  

BBC, continuing: "The panel includes Professor David Hand, president of the Royal Statistical Society, who has been examining the way CRU used statistical methodology to develop an average annual global temperature.

It is easy to get a measurement precise in space and time from an individual weather station -

• albeit with uncertainties attached.

But some countries have many weather stations while others have very few, and there are large areas of the Earth with

• no surface measurements at all.

So to build up a global picture by assigning a proper statistical weighting to the importance of the various measurements is a

• notoriously challenging task.

Climate sceptics say CRU's statistical methods have been inadequate, and it is thought the Oxburgh panel will look at this issue.

However, if the panel follows the recent House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report

into the e-mails it will conclude that the scientists involved had no intention to deceive."

• To the BBC: You acknowledge but fail to examine uncertainties, complete absence of weather stations, and shucks the work is notoriously challenging. Fine. Then why was its data used in a UN report submitted for a Nobel Prize, and a blueprint to overtake entire nations and their citizenry without a peep from you?
  

BBC, continuing: "Different practices

The Oxburgh panel also studied how the CRU acknowledged

• unavoidable scientific uncertainties in its work,
  

especially over research into the Medieval Warm Period.

Climate sceptics complain that the summary reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) do not always properly reflect the uncertainties defined in the underlying science, and the panel may comment on this.

It is also understood that members of the panel have remarked on the difference in practice between university science and industry science.

Many climate sceptics in the blogosphere are former industry scientists. In industry it is

• routine for original scientific research data to be archived by a records team and kept safe for as long as it might prove useful.

University scientists, on the other hand, are said to be have been more used to a culture in which

• notes are kept until papers are peer-reviewed -
  

• but then are filed in a less rigorous fashion."

To the BBC: You acknowledge files and papers are routinely discarded as a matter of custom. How can you substantiate this work? How can you keep your job as a reporter? Would you let an oil company get away with this, "well it's ok because we say so and you just shut up?"

• BBC, continuing: "This is an area where the House of Commons committee said that academic science needed to improve - particularly in an issue as contentious as climate change."

To the BBC: Fine, if they want to "improve" in the future. All data to date must be kept but viewed as inaccurate.

BBC, continuing: "Members of the panel

• are said to have
  

cross-examined CRU researchers for a total of 15 man-days.

The final review to be published will be the review headed by Sir Muir Russell, which will, among other things investigate whether the scientists manipulated data."

• Sure. ed.
  

"The panel, whose members were appointed by the university"...TimesOnlineUK

Bankers and hedge fund thugs still await delivery of the American middle class to the CO2 crime family

• Truth has gained a foothold late in the game in which deliberate falsehoods dominated for decades. Trillions of dollars, much of it criminal, is still at stake for the fake CO2 crowd.
  

"Unwarranted Trust" published in the Financial Times, April 7, 2010.

• "Climate change is simply natural and disaster isn't imminent," Lindzen, Modesto Bee, April 6, 2010

"I don’t think most scientists appreciate what has hit them. This isn’t only about the credibility of global warming. For years, global warming and its advocates have been the public face of hard science. Most people could not name three other subjects they would associate with the work of serious scientists. This was it. The public was told repeatedly that something called “the scientific community” had affirmed the science beneath this inquiry. A Nobel Prize was bestowed (on a politician).

• Global warming enlisted the collective reputation of science.
  
• 
  
• Because “science” said so, all the world was about to undertake a vast reordering of human behavior at almost unimaginable financial cost. Not every day does the work of scientists lead to galactic events simply called Kyoto or Copenhagen.
  
• At least not since the Manhattan Project.

What is happening at East Anglia is an epochal event. As the hard sciences—physics, biology, chemistry, electrical engineering—came to dominate intellectual life in the last century, some academics in the humanities

• devised the theory of postmodernism, which liberated them from their colleagues in the sciences.
  

Postmodernism, a self-consciously “unprovable” theory, replaced formal structures with subjectivity. With the revelations of East Anglia, this slippery and variable intellectual world has crossed into the hard sciences."...

• from Wall Street Journal by Daniel Henninger, April6, 2010, "Climategate: Science is Dying"

all above via SPPI blog

• P.S. And what a huge waste of time this whole fraud was, how many lives it ruined for no reason. ed.
  

Global warming's thin ice has broken, but that's peanuts. The real scandal is the silence of big US media.

Letter to OC Register: ""Let's hope that your editorial, "Arnold's global warming ardor cooling" [March 30], marks the beginning of new sanity emerging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on the massive economic destruction that AB 32 will bring to California if we implement its onerous and, from a global-impact perspective, totally meaningless provisions.

• There is no more iconic symbol of the colossal failure of the global-warming alarmists' climate-fear predictions than
  
• the claim that the Arctic sea ice will disappear in a few years.

All 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report Arctic sea ice model predictions show that there will be no recovery of this ice from its recent historical low point in the summer of 2007.

• Yet a huge recovery of that sea ice is exactly what has happened again, showing how political activist scientists twisted their models and data to get the "right" answer. A number of studies published in the Geophysical Research Letters by the Jet Propulsion Laboratorystarting in late 2007 used satellite data to show that unusual Arctic winds conditions,

and not global warming, drove the recent 2007 reductions in sea ice. Yet these studies were simply ignored by the climate alarmists. Later studies have shown that these wind conditions have abated, which is leading to increased sea ice growth.

• According to surface temperature data from the Climate Research Unit, Arctic temperatures have declined since 2004 and continue that trend.
  
• Thus the 2007 Arctic sea ice decline was not driven by changes in temperatures, which further supports the conclusions of the JPL studies.

According to satellite data from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency there is now more Arctic sea ice present than at any time during the last seven years and the trend of growing sea ice continues for both winter and summer conditions. This outcome is completely opposite to what the United Nations IPCC predicted, again demonstrating their political climate-fear bias.

• California needs to stop the economic suicide contained in AB 32 and start reconsidering the overwhelming evidence showing that the
  

global warming crisis is a fraud driven by political ideology.

Larry Hamlin

Dana Point"

Letter to Orange County Register, 4/2/10, "Get ready, global warming's thin ice is breaking," via Tom Nelson