Exactly how would Deutsche lose billions if it was decided that a group of climate scientists were telling lies?
Not just "a group of climate scientists" Arapiles. This particular group are central to the whole alarmist enterprise. But you knew that, you are just trying to deflect the gravity of the issue.
A politicians trick.
As I quoted to you 2 pages ago:
"The bank has a $60+ billion Green portfolio, which it wishes to assure investors is safe…not to mention their income from carbon trading. Other members of this board include current IPCC chief Pachauri and Lord Oxburgh, of Climategate exoneration fame. The viability of these banks activities depends on continued concern over CO2 emissions."
So do you seriously think a credible "independent Inquiry" into the climategate affair should be chaired by a man who sits on Deutsche Banks climate advisory panel along with the head of the IPCC Arapiles? Please do reply.
"Oh, and thanks for the gracious retraction, at least some people round here realise it's ok to be wrong and admit it."
For example, in relation to LNG prices?
Yes, I did admit I got that wrong at the time. So your attempted insinuation of hypocrisy on top of your attempted insinuation of crankiness fails.
"Well, I don't get it, mainly the reference to tumbleweeds and crickets.
It's a euphemism for "It's all gone quiet over there"."
Well, let's see: would that be because I live on the entirely opposite side of the world to you?
The person you are quoting lives over on that side of the world too doesn't she?
"The UK domestic energy bill is now about 15% higher because of this crap."
Your source for that claim?
Cost of electricity set to soar
Paul Hudson | 15:09 UK time, Friday, 15 October 2010
The UK is the only country in the world that has legally binding targets to cut carbon emissions. By 2020, 30% of all our electricity will have to come from renewable sources. It is a well known fact that generating electricity using, for example, wind power, is much more expensive than from a coal fired power station. So to plug this gap, and make it attractive to investors to put money into building wind farms and other renewable projects, the government makes subsidies available.
The current subsidies available to build wind farms and other renewable come to £1 billion, or £13 on our annual electricity bills. Subsidies for smaller wind turbines and solar panels comes to £610 million - or £8 annually on electricity bills. So at the moment each year we already pay £21 to subsidise these projects in the form of a 'hidden' charge on our bills.
The proposed subsidies, or green taxes, by 2020, are much higher.
£1.8 billion for ground source heat pumps - £23 on our annual bills.
£1 billion towards carbon capture coal power stations (Like Richard Budge's Hatfield project in South Yorkshire) - £15 on consumer bills.
£2.6 billion to artificially increase the price of carbon - £40 on bills. This is a measure designed to make generating nuclear power more attractive, by raising the price of carbon allowances under the European emission trading scheme. This makes generating zero carbon nuclear power more attractive relative to high carbon gas or coal power plants.
So in total, proposed green taxes will equal £78 on our annual fuel bills. Added to the existing subsidy we are already paying, a total charge of around £100 will be applied to our fuel bills annually in order to meet our legally binding targets on renewable energy by 2020.
This takes no account of a new subsidy regime which the government have been considering to support burning more biomass at power stations such as Drax.
I'll add that it also doesn't take account of the opportunistic price increases on fuel already made by the energy companies, or the additional levy on aircraft fuel already in place.