Charlie Rose

Roy Fassel  06/28/2008 09:57 AM Report

ESQ made the following statement which is simply not true....... "So, today, oil futures are driven by speculators, free from any regulatory oversight.".......... Energy futures contracts have the same regulations, the same rules, the same oversight by the CFTC, the same margin rules (around 5% or so) as has been in existence since the 1980s and since the late 1990s, early 1920s, when prices hovered above and below $20. Prices have gone up and have gone down during the past decades with the same rules. For anyone, including speculators, to make money, someone, either another speculator or a commercial hedger must be on the other side of the trade. If oil goes to $200, there will be an equal amount of money "lost" by the shorts as made by the "longs." ITS A ZERO SUM BUSINESS. Both could be speculators or both could be commercials. The same in reverse. If oil prices go down, the longs lose money and the shorts make money. It is simply not true that "speculators" have changed the "global" fundamentals of supply and demand of crude oil. If China outbits the rest of the world for crude oil or heating oil, that oil will be shipped to China. That has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats, Bush or Obama. Crude oil is a global market and the price is set by buyers and sellers all over the world, including the futures markets in New York, London and elsewhere. To make statements which simply are not true requires corrections. The end.

Roy Fassel  06/27/2008 11:31 PM Report

ESQ: I couldn't comment of FOX or any cable shows, so you might be right. I never watch any of them. FOX might be laughable. Beats me. I only listen to NPR or watch PBS, especially Charlie's show, so I yield to your views of FOX. At least you watch to make an intelligent review. I don't. All the best to you.

CM Grullon, Esq.  06/27/2008 04:56 PM Report

Re: comment by Mr. Fassel:

I find your reference to Fox News laughable considering that I boycotted Fox News over eight years ago because they use personal atacks and tactics like calling people "idots", or "undemocratic," or "anti-captalist," against anyone who disagrees with their neo conservative views. And or when they can't come up with legitimate facts and counter-arguments against those who oppose their views. Based on your reduction to name calling stemming from my last commentary, I can only assume that you're a loyal Fox fan and devoted Bush Republican. You can now consider this discussion officially over!

Roy Fassel   06/25/2008 10:57 PM Report

C.M. Grullon, Esq....I don't want to do this, but ESQ, you are either pulling my leg or you are a complete idiot. 5% margins are what kills speculators. When I say that historically, 90% of all speculators lose money...that is a fact. That is not noise. Are you even aware that for someone to make a profit on a futures market, when it goes up, someone has to be on the other side, losing real and actual money. For every contract, it must have a long and a short. There was an equal amount lost...real money as made during the price rise. Goodness. A 5% move either up or down at these prices of $135 is a "wiggle" of only $6.75. Anyone trading on 5% margin would get wiped out on a "wiggle." Your hatred and anger is noted. I leave you with best wishes.

Roy Fassel  06/25/2008 10:44 PM Report

C.M. Grullon, Esq................you take yourself too seriously and you take me too seriously. "firing for effect" was direct at someone who uses that "call letters" who implied that 5% margins the end of the world. The only reason I responded three times yesterday is that the web site would only take very short messages which were cut off. My point in quite simple. "Speculators" did not change the fundamentals of crude oil and therefore, because the fundametals have changed, prices had to rise to start rationing supplies. That is normal and that is where we are today with prices. I have no idea if crude oil will go to $200 or back to $60...or both. I am "for" alternative energy, but it is my fervent believe that to produce alternative energy sources in the VOLUME needed is probably a decade or more away. Until then, the global increased demand has changed the pricing. I did not ignore you "Enron" exception to deflect the issue. Enron was the first group who, with the Clinton Adminstration support, started the "cap and trade" concept, which is a farce and is only a scheme to make money for Wall Street dealers. It will do "zilch" for cutting greenhouse gases. I get your message, ESQ. You hate Bush and more than likely hate capitalism. Be patient. Your wishes will come true. This country will move toward a "contolled economy" in rapid order the next decade. So be patient, socialism and a controlled economy is in your future. Be patient. You will win the battle. Capitalism and the Republican Party will be a minority party for a very long time. So relax and look forward to a "contolled economy" for the good of all. Meanwhile, oil prices are where they belong on supply-demand fundamentals and the price has nothing to due with speculation, no matter what the Keith Obermans, Rush Limbaughs, and the people at FOX might or might not say. All the best ESQ, and be patient. Your economic model preference will rule in the near future. That is human nature. It never changes.

Allan Ramesh  06/25/2008 07:40 PM Report

The electric car is a reality now. My friend, drives an electric car plugged into a solar PV house. With California's Net Metering law, you can sell excess power to the grid and offset the power needs when the sun does not shine at night. So you can have no electric bill, no gasoline bill, and no greenhouse gas emissions. We have the technology today.

C.M. Grullon, Esq.  06/25/2008 07:17 PM Report

Re: Roy Fassel: Sur Reply by C.M.Grullon, Esq.

No Mr. Fassel, I am not merely as you put it "firing for effect." But it is clear that you are! Again, you choose to ignore the ugly facts and to deal with the current harsh realities confronting our nation. This is because it financially and politically benefits you and those like you working in Wall Sreet and in other financial markets, trading in futures and in other commodities, to do so. This is right in keeping with the Bush Administration's domestic and international policies, and with Bush's corrupt cronies that have practically bankrupt our country. Not unlike Bush Sr., did during the S&L scam of the 80's. In the process, unmerciably hitting the nation's poorest and the middle class the hardest.

The facts regarding the Bush Administration's role in the current superficially created energy and economic crisis speak for themselves. The jig is up Sir! This despite the fact that most people don't understand what futures trading is [which is why these crooks have and continue to get away with robbing the national treasury blind\, average Americans do tend to take notice when certain things begin to happen in their lives. For instance, when they have a hard time putting food on the table for their families to eat; or when their homes are being foreclosed in record numbers; or when they can't afford to keep their families warn in the winter or cool enough in the summer with record heat waives, due to outrageous fuel prices.

Futures trading may be a risky business when left to its own devises with alleged "traditional loses of 90%," but not when they are being traded in a rigged game. As stated by another commentator here, with a mere "5% margin, oil traders can control 20 times their commitment." The key to the current rigging in place in the futures market is the Enron Loophole. Which I stressed in my first comment and which you deliberately chose to ignore. Nevertheless, it is at the heart of the current sky-rocketing gas prices constituting in essence " a legalized form of insider trading." It's "deregulation that lets speculators overwhelm trading in oil futures, those complicated contracts that let commercial users of oil, hedge their bets about future price and supply fluctuations, by agreeing to prices and delivery dates ahead of time. Since this legislation passed, gasoline prices have more than doubled and commodity traders have made tens of millions of dollars, devastating thousands of small companies that deal in oil, and creating the risk of a speculative bubble popping." *

"The Enron loophole applied to all energy commodities, oil, propane, natural gas. So, today, oil futures are driven by speculators, free from any regulatory oversight. Now, you can't just blame OPEC any more. British Petroleum paid 303 million dollars to settle charges it cornered the propane market in 2004, inflating heating costs for seven million American homes."

According to Michael Greenberger, Fmr CFTC Dir of Trading & Markets, " The speculators are not just placing bets in these futures markets, they're saying, gosh, if I can control the price of heating oil, I'll go out and buy heating oil. So you have Morgan Stanley as the biggest heating oil owner in New England." Were the Enron loophole to be closed by Congress according to Greenberger, "overnight that will bring down the price of crude oil to at least a 25 percent drop in the cost of oil and a corresponding drop in the cost of gasoline. Some people estimate 50 percent."

Moreover, according to Mark Cooper, from the Consumer Federation of America, "The speculative bubble in petroleum markets has cost the average American household about 1,500 dollars in increased gasoline, natural gas, and electricity expenditures in the two years since the Senate committee on investigations first called attention to the problem. The Senate knew about this problem two years ago." "Two years ago, a Republican Senate report recognized what speculators have done and blamed the Enron loophole. Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee heard testimony about the Enron loophole's effect on the price of a barrel of oil. "

With respect to respect to the danger that the Enron loophole will also allow futures speculators to corner the currently developing alternative fuels market, that could otherwise provide relief from U.S. reliance on oil and the abuses we're currently experiencing, according to Greenberger, "What's going to happen when you get all this new, clean energy is the banks are going to go into those markets and rob those guys blind, like they're robbing the gas station owners and heating oil dealers in this country right now."

What role has the Bush Administration, their corrupt cronies, and their Republican flunky Presidential Candidate, Sen. John McCain directly and /or indirectly played in creating the current oil price crisis? According to the news report aired on Countdown on June 18th 08, coupled wtih other reliable news sources, "McCain's chief economic adviser, among others, helped create and defend pivotal legislation that unleashed speculators to run up gas prices."

"Soon after Enron's birth as a power supplier in the 1980s, CEO Ken Lay decided Enron could make more money betting on electricity futures, especially if government regulators didn't stop him from cornering the market and gaming the system. Under the first President Bush, an obscure agency called the Commodities Future Trading Commission obliged Ken Lay. The CFTC chairwoman, Wendy Gramm, left Enron alone.

When Bill Clinton beat Bush, it took only one week before Enron asked Gramm to lock in her hands-off position as official CFTC policy. Gramm started the process. The CFTC approved it after she left on Clinton's inauguration day. Five weeks later, she took a part-time post on Enron's board of directors and wound up earning more than 900,000 dollars over the next decade. Clinton never undid Gramm's changes.

Fast forward to the year 2000 and Bush v. Gore. In the chaos of constitutional crisis, Enron got a law passed containing what is now known as the Enron loophole. Where Gramm deregulated individual trades, the Enron loophole deregulated entire markets, online markets. Enron had just started its own online market, and set its sites on the state of California.

Over the next six months, California suffered 38 rolling blackouts, as Enron used artificial shortages, bogus deals and total knowledge of the market as sole owner of its own online market to triple California's energy bills. In the dark, regulators had less power than California did, leaving Enron laughing about it."

Unidentified Enron Male Employee #1: "The money you stole from those poor grandmothers in California."

Unidentified Enron Male Employee Male #2: "Yes, Grandma Millie, man."

Unidentifed Enron Male Employee #1: "Yes, now she wants her (EXPLETIVE DELETED) money back for all the power you charged—jammed up her (EXPLETIVE DELETED) at 250 dollars a megawatt hour. "

Welcome to the reality of us little folks Mr. Fassel, or rather the rest of America living outside the confines and rigged games of Wall Street, the Bush Administration, and its cronies!

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 10:47 PM Report

Firing for effect...goodness. futures have been around since 1848 to transfer non-wanted risk by commericials to willing speculators. The margins have always been around 5% or so. Historically, 90% of all futures traders lose money. It will ever be thus. That is capitalism. The alternative is the Soviet system which could not feed itself. This is not a new concept. The fundamentals of crude oil has changed with Asia. Don't drill though. Dance through the tulips. Blame Bush. Unbelievable.

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 10:11 PM Report

Let me clear the air. The biggest change in futures trading lately is that pension funds got into long futures (index funds) only positions. Calpers, the Cal. public employees pension fund has been one of the biggest long position buyers the past few years. Blame the government employees pension funds, if you will. Calpers also owns over $2bil of Exxon and almost $1Bil of Halliburton. These public employee funds are a new source of capital in futures that caused much of this price rise, besides Asia demand. Blame the pension funds then, if you need to

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 09:52 PM Report

Since WWII, America has had roughly 5% of the globes's population and consumed roughly 30% of the globe's resource. Those days are over. That is the fault of both speculators and George W. Bush. As a lifelong commodity futures trader, I know of more speculators who have lost their asses in oil than any other time (or market) in the past 45 years. Get over it.

skeptic  06/24/2008 09:02 PM Report

The News Hour had a report that estimated one-third of the $130+ is due to the speculators. Obviously waiting for the little guys to unload on to send the price back to $75 +/-. It's a grand system --- provided you're one of the 'wise-guys.'

firing for effect  06/24/2008 08:51 PM Report

With a 5% margin oil traders can control 20 times their commitment. The system's financial wise-guys - ala subprimers - are at it again. Capitalism contains the seed of its own destruction, to paraphrase Marx/Engles.

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 07:38 PM Report

Goodness, gracious. I am not a Wall Street type. I have never had any connections to oil companies. I have never owned oil stocks. I have traded commodity futures since 1965 and was in the futures business for most of my life. I have seen more speculators lose money

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 07:22 PM Report

If anyone wants to see for themselves, here is the address......http://www.cftc.gov/dea/options/deanymesof.htm..................ot will show all the long and short positions of

CMGrullon, Esq.  06/24/2008 07:18 PM Report

Re Comment by Roy Fassel re my earlier comment re role that Wall Street Futures Speculators have played in giving rise to current outragious fuel prices.

Let me take a wild quess here Mr. Fassel. You either work on Wall Street or for one of the major oil companies in some capacity or other. Are you a lobbyist by chance? I noted that you made equally negative commenents regarding other energy alternative related issues pertaining to the environment and energy conservation.

I guess the producers at MSNBC Countdown and its' host Keith Oberman {who did a special segment on this issue regarding Wall Street, energy, and futures) are as confused and misinformed as I am about it. Thanks to you we're all going to continue to ignore the reality and corruption flowing right from the White House, to Wall streetm all the way down to us little people. The very people who are suffering the horrific consequences of said corruption, while those responsible continue to line their pockets and get richer every day. Are they by chance your friends and neighbors?

skeptic - yet again  06/24/2008 05:11 PM Report

Monitors - Your system is truncating posts?????

skeptic  06/24/2008 05:02 PM Report

Mr. Fassel - I (happily) don't know much about commodity trading, but (intuitively?) it seems you've have described a

Roy Fassel  06/24/2008 01:57 PM Report

To CMGrullon

Here are the very latest figures of large funds or large speculators (24 contracts or more) with positions on latest report dated June 17, 2008

Total open contracts….(remember in futures, one must have both a long and a short to make a contract).................

1,335,207 contracts total...........

Large speculators are long 203,000 contracts.....

Large speculators are short 191,000

There are, and have been almost as many short positions, by large speculators as long positions. Guess who was the biggest buyers the past week. It was the shorts covering shorts as they were losing their shirts. The idea that speculators in futures markets can control prices levels defies common sense.

These reports are available each Friday from the CFTC website. We live in a world of misleading

CMGrullon, Eq  06/24/2008 12:11 PM Report

Dear Charlie,

Could you do a show on the direct effect on national and international fuel prices resulting from Wall Street's recent massive investment in oil futures, as a direct result of the Enron loopole legislation. The current crisis is not just about the Saudis this time around. In fact, the Saudis had a major news conference on thsi very issue recently, just barely received any media coverage.

Please see MSNBC Countdown of last week which did a major segment on the direct role of Wall Street future speculators on currently out of control fuel prices. As well as how the Enron loopole legislation will allow the same thing to happen re any alternative fuels innovations put into the market in the near future unless this legislatin is recinded by Congress.

I found your show with Fred Krupp disapponting in that it did not touch on any of the above critical issues.These are issues which most Americans know nothing about.

Thanks.

SheBee  06/24/2008 11:25 AM Report

NewsmaxTV's Ashley Martella reports; the <a href= Http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V2546260&promo_code=6356-1/>Supreme Court rules AGAINST Environmental groups & Homeland Security!</a>.

oil gaming?  06/24/2008 01:30 AM Report

Japanese car runs on water! ---------------------- http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0006.html?bcpid=86195573&bclid=86272812&bctid=1612713585

Roy Fassel  06/23/2008 09:50 AM Report

Dear Charlie, Some of your audience may like to know that all-electric cars (that require no gasoline) will require a dramatic increase in electricity output. Dear Charlie, your audience may like to know that to dramatically increase electricity output will require many, many, many more utility plants. Utility plants primarily burn coal, and in a few cases are powered by nuclear power. To build new nuclear plants is a twenty year proposition. To build new energy plants, using coal, is also a multi-year proposition. Much has been said about the environment and global warming. These are two entirely different matters of importance. Global warming is real. It has been real for millions and millions of years. And before â??humanityâ?? came along. The environment can be dealt with by human ingenuity. It always has. The Kyoto Accords were negotiated and signed during the Clinton-Gore years in the White House. Clinton â??signedâ?? the Accords but did not send it to the Senate because the Senate voted 95-0 against the Accords concept, during the Clinton-Gore era. While this was going on, Governor Bush (of Texas) signed the Texas Electric Restructuring Statute, which mainly deregulated the state's electricity industry but also required distribution utilitiesâ??which it separated from generating companiesâ??to include designated proportions of energy from renewable sources(mostly wind) in their portfolios. That is, it was the only state to have enacted a clean energy mandate. It is totally disingenuous for people to constantly point to Bush to deflect blame. While Clinton and Gore dithered, Governor Bush implemented "wind power" demands on Texas utilities. While everyone was wringing their hands, President Bush cut a deal with the major Asian countries that will require sharing of any new technology which will help cut emissions. Krupp is a total phony primarily because he does not mention any of this with his "framing" propaganda piece. So the idea that "electric cars" can make a difference without causing more coal emissions to be put into the air is enough wind to help the Texas utilities to meet their Bush ordered "wind power."

Linda Mae  06/22/2008 09:02 PM Report

Dear Charlie:

No. No. No. Despite what Fred Krupp says, it is NOT definite that all scientists support the concept that global warming is man made and the new laws proposed will save us. As a journalist, you should be aware of the numerous scientists - some in the United States and others in Europe - who have decried the lack of scientific evidence to support such an allegation. There are so many outspoken individuals against the concept that you should have on your show.

The most important is The Global Warming Petition Project. http://www.petitionproject.org/

To date, the current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. A visit to the site includes the names and qualifications of the signers, the research report they support (which has just been updated), plus frequently asked questions that you and the American public ought to know.

Another site is icecap.us which has Weather Channel Founder, John Coleman calling Global Warming the â??Greatest Scam in Historyâ??

He has been a TV meteorologist in San Diego. Coleman has his own site as well. Perhaps he would come on to your show to debate the topic.

Another possible guest is CA Representative Dana Rohrabacher who asked the following question: Regarding the Lieberman-Warner Debate, Rep. Rohrabacher asked: â??Do you really think the world is filled with morons?â?? The site to read his speech to the House of Representatives (House of Representatives - May 14, 2008)is located http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424

It will take at least 10 minutes to read his speech - longer if you take time to visit the links he includes. Any one of the scientists he discusses in his speech would also be a terrific guest.

One just needs to google "global warming hoax/myth) to find links to national and international experts who believe global warming is not man made. For you to ignore them does a disservice to the American public. It has become a political issue without a foundation in science. It is the golden calf: more taxes for the government and increased profits for businesses. I do not mean to say that I do not believe that we must learn to conserve our environment. We must do what we can to clean our air and water. Kyoto proclaimed deforestation as the number one problem yet where is the cry to plant a tree in your back yard; to encourage towns and cities to build more parks; to enforce those who cut down trees to replace them. (Germany has had this law on its books for years.) I am most pleased that an English lorry driver sued the government because his child was forced to watch Gore's movie. The result was that now there needs to be a warning that there are 9 untruths in the movie and soon there may be other videos which will explain the faulty science Mr. Gore uses.

I've spent so many hours reading experts from the United States as well as European countries who all agree that there is no scientific support that man has created global warming. In matter of fact, it seems that we might be entering a cooling period. I think it is ironic that all of our cars have catalytic converters to change the poisonous CO into CO2 because it was harmless. I've also told some of my friends who argue the issue to then help the environment by holding their breath for 5 minutes every hour since we do exhale CO2.

Charlie, please recant the idea that everyone supports the global warming is man made. They is not. Please get some guests to discuss this issue. It is your duty to give a balanced account of such an issue.

Roy Fassel  06/22/2008 09:01 PM Report

Krupp is one of the bazaar people which cause a great deal of problems for his movement and his cause. He lies all the time. He said, as in presented for the past seven years that it was Bush's fault that America did not join the Kyoto Accords. This is utter nonsense and Krupp should know this. If he does not, then he is uninformed. In 1997, the US Senated voted 95-zero.....repeat ...95-zip against the Kyoto concept that Al Gore was negoiating. The US Senate said that they would not agree to any treaty which (1) harms the US economy and (2) did not include all nations, such as emerging nations. Later on, President Clinton "signed" the Accords, but he needed the US Senate to ratify the Accord agreement, because all treaties my be ratified by the Senate. President Clinton, even though he "signed" it, did not send it to the Senate for ratification, because he knew that a Senate who voted 95-zero against the Accords, we not going to come up with a 2/3 majority needed to approve of the Accords. Then Krupp said that when Bush came, he did not even "try to negotiate" in the matter. Goodness sakes alive. The Accords were already "signed" and completed before Bush got to the White House. The Kyoto Accords would not have been implemented by America, even if Al Gore had won the 2000 election. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. Most people do not even know that most "signees" of the Accords will not come close to meeting their requirements and will abandon their committment. People like Krupp say we should not drill in areas where the oil is located. He wants "alternative fuels" to take the place. If America converted 100% of the corn to ethanol, it would only energize 94 days of America's "gasoline" (only) needs. America with absolutely no imports of crude oil has only 3 years supply of domestic crude oil reserves remaining for energize our economy. It is suicidal to suggest that alternative energy can be developed that quickly. It is reckless and delusional to think that "anything" can replace fossil fuels for a number of decades. Having "head in the sand" guests, who really are "pie in the sky" dreamers does great harm to rational discussions of the issues. Anyone who thinks "cap and trade" is a scheme to help global warming knows nothing. It is a "scam". This "scam" concept was started by Enron years ago. Global warming is caused mostly by changes in the sunspot activities. If anyone thinks that humanity can change "climate changes", they need help! Studies have confirmed that at one time all of Texas and the Persian Gulf were under water for eons. It had to be to convert decayed matter to crude oil. That takes 800,000 years. It also is known that the Mexico Gulf came all the way up to the fork of the Ohio River and the Mississippi River, near Cape Girardeau, Missouri. Was that caused by "evil humans?" This stuff is as crazy an thinking the waters parted 6,000 years ago for Moses to pass through to freedom. Krupp is great harm to the environmental cause with his nonsense. The cause is very worthy. The spokespeople must be honest. Krupp is not.

Mark Sze-To  06/22/2008 09:01 PM Report

Dear Charlie,

Some of your audience may like to know that all-electric cars (that require no gasoline, plug into standard electrical outlets) are here in small numbers and will be coming out within two years. Here's a link to a London Times article mentioning electric cars: http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/features/article4176484.ece

I think this and other reports substantiate the view of some people that we can survive in the short-run without additional oil exploration or exploitation. We just require a sound marketing effort behind the promotion of this not-so-new industry of electric cars(after all there have been electric cars of one kind or another for the whole time

there have been gasoline and diesel vehicles) to help Americans, Indians and Chinese kick the petrol habit while preserving, and indeed, at today's fuel prices, enhancing their standards of living. By the way, the cost of maintenance with electric cars is much less than that of gas cars, and the cost of "fueling" electric cars for a comparable distance to gas cars, even with coal powered electrical generation (much less Brazilian sugar cane bagasse) and battery replacement every 2 to 5 years is about the equivalent of paying 50 cents per gallon of gas! Please look up Electric Vehicles on the internet for more information.

Take that, you fake bloggers paid for by oil money!

Linda Mae  06/22/2008 03:11 AM Report

This sounds like it would make a great discussion.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

â??Global warmingâ?? is not a global crisis

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed â??consensusâ?? among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanityâ??s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend â??

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as â??An Inconvenient Truthâ??.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008.

These are the media contacts in America and would serve as a wonderful panel to discuss the issue that global warming is man made.

INTERNATIONAL MEDIA CONTACTS FOR THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION

OF THE HUNDREDS OF SIGNATORIES TO THE MANHATTAN DECLARATION ON CLIMATE CHANGE, THE FOLLOWING HIGHLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS HAVE AGREED TO SPEAK WITH MEDIA ABOUT WHY THEY ENDORSED THE DECLARATION:

United Sates of America:

J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Telephone: 610-622-6480

E-mail address: armstrong@wharton.upenn.eduThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Web: http://theclimatebet.com

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.

Telephone: 703/920-2744

E-mail address: singer@SEPP.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

NIPCC: http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

Web: www.sepp.org

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, U.S.A.

Telephone: 256-961-7960

E-mail address: spencer@nsstc.uah.eduThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

John Coleman, Founder, The Weather Channel, Weather Anchor, KUSI-TV, San Diego, California, U.S.A.

Telephone: after 3 PM Pacific Time weekdays at 858-505-5019.

E-mail address: wxguy@san.rr.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestations.org, Chico, California, U.S.A.

Telephone: 530-899-8434

E-mail address: info@surfacestations.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Web: www.itworks.com

Jerry Brule  06/21/2008 04:34 AM Report

It is interesting to read one of the flat worlders like Linda. Their critique of Global Warming is similar to the tactics used by the tobacco companies. They spread doubt for decades after it was known that tobacco caused cancer. Most of the so called â??Scientistsâ?? that doubt global warming have been paid by companies like Exxon Mobile to prostitute their scientific principals. Michael Crichton is one of those on Exxon Mobileâ??s bankroll for his novel about a global warming hoax. Linda is right though we should stop cutting trees and re-plant the rain forests though. Goreâ??s film does not have 9 inaccuracies, it contains some theories that havenâ??t been proven yet. Doesnâ??t mean they are false.

In fact the evidence (melting glaciers, and sea ice)indicates that the warming is happening faster than even the most conservative estimates, and tipping points may have already happened, not in 5-10 years as Krupp suggests. Consider the consequences. If the Global Warming Doubters are right and we spend a lot of money and no disaster occurs, the investment will give us cleaner air, water, and cheap energy, and will revitalize our economy. There is no down side. If the vast majority of scientists are right and we have done nothing to stop the disaster, millions will die, hundreds of millions will be displaced, and it will cost trillions. Relocating the entire country of Bangladesh, most of Florida and major coastal cities like New York will cost thousands of times more than the relatively small amount that we should invest in the environment to stop Global Warming.

I am disappointed that Mr. Krupp is so invested in the Cap and Trade system. A Carbon Tax would be much simpler, easier and more effective than the Cap and Trade system that was ineffective in Europe. A Cap and Trade is a bureaucratic nightmare and a wet dream for lobbyists, because polluting industries will game the system, get rich and not stop their pollution.

A Carbon Tax may not be politically expedient now, but it would be better for industry because it is predictable and all industry could plan for it.

If we must do a Cap and Trade, auctioning off the credits (as Obama proposes) would be much better than just giving them away (to the biggest contributors) as proposed by McCain.

Thanks for all of the good and valuable info Mr. Krupp

Linda Mae  06/21/2008 12:11 AM Report

Dear Charlie:

No. No. No. Despite what Fred Krupp says, it is NOT definite that all scientists support the concept that global warming is man made and the new laws proposed will save us. As a journalist, you should be aware of the numerous scientists - some in the United States and others in Europe - who have decried the lack of scientific evidence to support such an allegation. There are so many outspoken individuals against the concept that you should have on your show.

The most important is The Global Warming Petition Project. http://www.petitionproject.org/

To date, the current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy. A visit to the site includes the names and qualifications of the signers, the research report they support (which has just been updated), plus frequently asked questions that you and the American public ought to know.

Another site is icecap.us which has Weather Channel Founder, John Coleman calling Global Warming the â??Greatest Scam in Historyâ??

He has been a TV meteorologist in San Diego. Coleman has his own site as well. Perhaps he would come on to your show to debate the topic.

Another possible guest is CA Representative Dana Rohrabacher who asked the following question: Regarding the Lieberman-Warner Debate, Rep. Rohrabacher asked: â??Do you really think the world is filled with morons?â?? The site to read his speech to the House of Representatives (House of Representatives - May 14, 2008)is located http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424

It will take at least 10 minutes to read his speech - longer if you take time to visit the links he includes. Any one of the scientists he discusses in his speech would also be a terrific guest.

One just needs to google "global warming hoax/myth) to find links to national and international experts who believe global warming is not man made. For you to ignore them does a disservice to the American public. It has become a political issue without a foundation in science. It is the golden calf: more taxes for the government and increased profits for businesses. I do not mean to say that I do not believe that we must learn to conserve our environment. We must do what we can to clean our air and water. Kyoto proclaimed deforestation as the number one problem yet where is the cry to plant a tree in your back yard; to encourage towns and cities to build more parks; to enforce those who cut down trees to replace them. (Germany has had this law on its books for years.) I am most pleased that an English lorry driver sued the government because his child was forced to watch Gore's movie. The result was that now there needs to be a warning that there are 9 untruths in the movie and soon there may be other videos which will explain the faulty science Mr. Gore uses.

I've spent so many hours reading experts from the United States as well as European countries who all agree that there is no scientific support that man has created global warming. In matter of fact, it seems that we might be entering a cooling period. I think it is ironic that all of our cars have catalytic converters to change the poisonous CO into CO2 because it was harmless. I've also told some of my friends who argue the issue to then help the environment by holding their breath for 5 minutes every hour since we do exhale CO2.

Charlie, please recant the idea that everyone supports the global warming is man made. It is not. Please get some guests to discuss this issue. It is your duty to give a balanced account of such an issue.

Ricardo Amaral  06/20/2008 11:24 PM Report

Reply to Rosewatcher. Antonin Scalia the US Supreme Court presidential election Fixer and the fascist Dictator Benito Mussolini most likely is one of his heroes and one of the people who he looks up to.

Rosewatcher  06/20/2008 02:31 PM Report

To Richardo Amarai or another: who is going to be Charlie "right wing fascist" guest on June 20 that you mentioned? Tell me how I can find out about this.

TABS  06/20/2008 05:11 AM Report

Mr Krupp's real name is Mr Pollyanna. Since the dawn of civilization 5000 years ago man has sh!t where he has eaten. Leaving a trail of destruction and despoilment wherever he has set foot. What makes Mr Pollyanna think that this is going to change. Government regulation, corporate forbearance? The task is daunting at the very least. To get men in the United States let alone the world to set aside their own interests for a common good, when has that happened? Perhaps the end game of civilization is the extinction of the species.....Again the 500 pound Gorilla has been ignored, and that is the question of over population. Six point five billion today, nine billion by 2030 and eleven Billion by 2050. This is all a recipe for collapse at some point, no matter the efficacy of science, business and government on curing the environmental problems.

Dee  06/20/2008 03:29 AM Report

Finally someone is speaking the truth!!! Why does it take this long for someone to educate the public about the situation with the economy, oil, and global warming. It is very evident as to what's going to happen, but somehow the truth always get delayed from being communicated to the general public. I mean most of us know can guess what's happening or what's going to happen.

I found interesting how Mr. Krupp's mentioned the CDM's deadline of 2012 and how it coincided with the Mayan's prediction of the end of the world by 2012. The Mayan's knew we would come to point as human beings where we have to make a major evolution in order to survive, and the time has come.

charlies sheep  06/20/2008 01:47 AM Report

ACCORDING 2 UR PIECE-- KRUPP--A CHEERLEADER--HOWEVER DEFINED--WITH SUPPORT--WHATEVER, THAT IS, CAN--- WRAP AROUND, HIS STILL YET ILL-DEFINED DIRECTIVE OF THE SAME LOBBIST ,WHO WORK WITH PRODUCERS OF HYDROCARBONS--TO DO WHAT WAS PROTECTED--BY A PRESIDENT--A CONGRESS--A CORPORATE GREED--DRIVEN BY THEIR MONEY--THE REAL POLLUTERS , HE TALKS ABOUT HIS OPTIMISM--PROBABLY , @ BEING THE MASCOT AGAINST THE CORPORATE JUGERNAUGHTS--CONTINUAL ROLL OVER THE WORLD THRU FINGER POINTING ALONG WITH I.E. REALITY THAT CORPORATIONS REALLY LIKE "BUSINESS-AS USUAL"---EAGLES-HENLY SONG

RE Mant  06/20/2008 01:14 AM Report

Cap and trade essentially issues pollution ration coupons and allows trading in them. The idea being that therefore the incentive is to do as much as possible without coupons. Some have suggested doing the same to gain efficiency in healthcare. We could do that right now to help alleviate the regressive effects of the energy crisis. It is not, however, bureaucracy-less, because it takes a lot of work to establish the proper initial distribution of the coupons. Taxing pollution would do as well, as would socialized medicine, but would still involve the same administrative problems, and tho' not necessarily less efficient, neither could be said to offer an incentive for self-restraint. However, irresponible monetary and fiscal policies can spell the demise of any such plans since easy money affords the means to evade restraints, as has been amply demonstrated in the area of home loans.

Ricardo Amaral  06/20/2008 01:08 AM Report

Charlie today you had a terrific guest in Fred Krupp and I enjoyed watching your show. Most of the information that he mentioned on your show is the major reason why I thought Al Gore would be the best candidate to become the new US president in January 2009. As president Al Gore could put all this theory into practice and in the process reinvent the US economy of the future. Last year I attended a very interesting conference about ethanol and biofuels and you can read about it on this web site. The Sustainable Development Forum 2007 - Ethanol and Biofuels. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93388

Mr. Krupp did not mention the ratio of efficiency of the various products that he mentioned on your program. But there is something that I like to say about the ethanol produced from sugar cane. In the last 30 years they have been perfecting the production of ethanol produced from sugar cane in Brazil, and today they are getting almost 10 times more ethanol from sugar cane than ethanol produced from corn in the USA. But last year on that conference we were told that the ratio in Brazil is up to 12 and they expect to reach a ratio of 15 very soon because of the new technologies being developed right now.

As they perfected ethanol production over the years they were able to eliminate the need for oil almost 100 percent, they developed a system of using the bagaco of the sugar cane to produce the electric power necessary to power the ethanol refineries. They did such an outstanding job that they started creating a lot more electric power than they needed to power the ethanol refineries and as the icing on the cake the ethanol refineries connected to the local power grid and they started selling the extra electric power to the local communities in the process reducing the need for oil even further. Today millions of Brazilians get their electric power from this new innovative system.

By the way Charlie, tomorrow I am not going to watch your show since I donâ??t like that radical right-wing fascist.

oil gaming wins  06/20/2008 12:37 AM Report

Japanese H2O car. Why is this so under publicized. Has big oil squelched it? Check out this Wall Street Journal video: http://online.wsj.com/public/page/8_0006.html?bcpid=86195573&bclid=86272812&bctid=1612713585

At the end they talk about mass producing it. Good old USA innovation been preempted? Again?

charlies sheep  06/20/2008 12:29 AM Report

SOUNDS GRANDIOSE--BUT--GOVERNMENTS PARTICIPATION--IN THE SUPER FUND PROJECTS ARE AFTER 35 YRS---UNFINISED GOALS--- SITES, DREAMS AND REMAIN SO BY FOLKS WHO SAID-- NAH--IT AINT SO---RATHER THAN LISTEN TO THE DEAD ANIMALS-- WE DRINK IN DDT--DIOXINS--ANTI FREEZE--LEADOXIDES--BENZINE--ISOCYANATES---POLYMERS---BISPHENOL--"PLASTICS"--AS SCRIPTED--IN THE GRADUATE MOVIE WAS WRITEN BY DOW--DUPONT--CELANESE--3M--EXXON--OOPS CHARLIES EARS ARE SHUT-- ROSE TAKES ON ALL-MONIES NO DISCRIMINATION