Supposing. Just supposing.

Let us say you become chairman of a trading company. You naturally are able to purchase your shares at a fairly low price, and as chairman, you have the lion’s share of them.

Naturally, since you want your company to make a profit (and thereby increase your personal monetary wealth), you need to create demand for your shares.

The more people who buy your shares, the more money you make. Basic economics of trade.

Historically, one of the safest and most secure of industries to trade in is a utility. People are always buying oil, gas, electricity, and water, right? There’s no getting around them. And that would be good for you to trade in, except that the players there are well established and you would be competing in a very big pool.

Now it occurs to you that there could be a way to create a new utility entirely from scratch. That would be great for you, if only there was a way to do that. Supposing we take something that there is plenty of, and create immense but restricted demand for. In other words, it costs us nothing to create it, but by limiting how much people can use it, we create intense demand for it. This is nothing new: software distribution, video, and record companies do exactly that. They don’t create the products, but control access to it and drive up prices.

On top of that, what if we made it legally required to use your product? That’s a bit of new idea and a major risk. But could it be done?

Yes: you produce evidence that not using your utility is dangerous! Deadly! Disastrous! There is just enough evidence this could be true, and not nearly enough discernment among the media and government to know any better. Heck, they’ll believe it if you have a big enough public outcry!

Second, you could force the issue that the danger is caused by your competition! They are the ones responsible for the danger! Indeed, you could force your competitors to buy your shares, especially when public outcry is forcing the government to pass legislation in your favor.

Now comes the need to create the public outcry. You start with a book. Then a movie. Then more books. Tour the talk shows, the main stream media, and radio interviews. Keep stressing the fear and terror. If anyone critiques or questions the sanity behind this, whip up more anecdotes that distract the public from what you’re really doing. Keep funding more and more research grants that effectively predispose findings in your favor, like the tobacco companies and big oil companies allegedly did.

Does this sound feasible? Does this sound legitimate? Could it work?

It just might, especially if that chairman is Vice President Al Gore, the trading company is Generation, and the utility is carbon credits.

Does it now make sense that some very influential people are on board, and demanding Cap and Trade, Copenhagen treaties, and the declaration of CO₂ as a dangerous molecule? Does it explain the weird presence of Goldman Sachs in the Obama administration? And is the massive European investment firm representation in any way related to the massive push for carbon trading in Europe? And where pro-AGW climate research gets its funding?

So when people tell you the Hadley CRU emails are not damaging to the cause, perhaps it’s because they know it doesn’t affect the Grand Plan?

The Czar of Muscovy

Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.