According to RBS, it appears that China is dumping the Dollar, and Dollar denominated assets. For more information on these green shoots, including great graphs, click the link below.
What is in a name?
One name that is being tossed around a lot is the name of the institute that is at the center of this "climategate." The name of this institute is the "Hadley Center for Climate Change." Now, there are many accusations with supposed proof from each side, but the simplest observation can help us to immediately understand the motive. Their name is "Hadley Center for Climate Change." This indicates that their sole existence is to prove climate change and its effects.
There are a few reasons why I would suggest this. On their website they are quite clear that they believe "Climate Change" (which is a fairly new term introduced being that the term "global warming" blew up on them, so I will use Global Warming throughout the rest of the article) does exist and has already been proven. This can be extrapolated by phrases they use such as "A simple guide looking at the facts and impacts and history of climate change" and the images they use such as a smokestack with smoke spelling out "CO2" not to mention a desolated area of the earth.
One problem that I have with this is that most of the time they spend examining data seems to be so they can prove that "global warming" is occurring. How can scientists objectively approach their research when the outcome, in their eyes, is already decided? So, naturally, data must be skewed to fit their hypothesis.
Where's my motivation?
I can't say factually what the motivation is, but these scientists are being paid and have steady work. If they disproved "global warming" then they would be out of work until the next job. Now, you can think a little deeper and consider that there is government motivation. After all, this is a government organization that clearly already believes that "global warming" is a proven fact. It seems slightly suspect that an organization of the government would declare "global warming" to be so factual with clearly inconsistent data and so many dissenters if they didn't have political motivation.
What possible political motivation can arise? Taxes, permits, new businesses, control over industry, and the sky is the limit! New companies that regulated CO2, audited CO2 emissions, and sold credits would be created. Imagine if politicians, that have a vested interest in some industries, could levy a massive tax on their competition? They would either be making money off of them or put them out of business. It would open up a whole new level of control never before seen by man.
Using basic logic, you can clearly see:
- Their name & website clearly suggest a steadfast belief that "global warming" exists.
- They get paid for an indefinite period of time assuming they don't disprove "global warming"
- There is a lot of political opportunity available if "global warming" is proven true such as large tax increases, new permits, and new business opportunities.
- The leaked emails help to contribute to this conclusion.
The name, the motivation, and the disposition all point to an organization that has a goal, and a motivation to push their idea without consideration that they may be wrong. Someone is wrong in the Climategate argument, there is no in-between. But with the current slew of information, and a basic analysis of the source of "proof" it is easy to see through the situation.
Not to say I would want his job, but if your idea to save the economy is: make money cheap so banks, and the federal government run up their credit and hope for the best, then that is not very inventive. That is basically what every low income family that has lost their job is resorting to, and it only makes problems worse. It will work similarly on the micro as it will on the macro! Now, I understand that the Time magazine award is for people who have affected the world "for better or for worse." But it sounds like they think it is for the better.
Don't get me wrong, Bernanke seems like a cool guy. I would most certainly hang out with him, but person of the year? We haven't even begun to see the effects of his decisions. This is like giving the award to a person who has the intention of going back in time. I think that in a few years we'll be able to look back on this and realize how big a farce this is. At least, I hope we'll have that ability assuming cataclysmic destruction of our economy does not ensue. Do I hope I'm wrong? OF COURSE! I hope that in a few years Bernanke can call me up laughing saying "You remember how you said I didn't deserve man of the year? I guess you were wrong."
But everything in me looks at what decisions are being made, and what the logical outcome may be, and I just think that the decisions are being arrived at for the short term outcome, and the long term is not being considered.
"The ceiling was set at $12.104 trillion dollars.
The latest posting by Treasury shows the National Debt at nearly $12.135 trillion. "
To read more about these green shoots follow this link: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/16/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5987341.shtml
"I can't say this enough:
The state has run out of money.
We are $1 billion short..."
-New York Governor Patterson
To read more about these green shoots you can find the article here: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/12/13/2009-12-13_untitled__2gov13m.html#ixzz0ZxgA0CtB