From The Economist:
The moralising stridency of so many arguments for cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and global emissions treaties was founded on the idea that there is a consensus about how much warming there would be if carbon emissions continue on trend. The rather heated debates we have had about the likely economic and social damage of carbon emissions have been based on that idea that there is something like a scientific consensus about the range of warming we can expect. If that consensus is now falling apart, as it seems it may be, that is, for good or ill, a very big deal.
Finally, even The Economist has become skeptical about weather alarmism. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Obama to Announce Sweeping New Powers on Tuesday – Will Regulate Power Plants to Save Country from ‘Global Warming’
Why not cut off power to the federal government first? Heat, a/c, and electric. That would show real leadership. Pres. Lincoln managed fine without electricity, central heating, or a/c, and he rode around town on a low-emission horse powered by biofuel. First, the gummint should cut the power to the NSA and the IRS. Then, the White House. Then Congress. Our moral and intellectual superiors should show us the way.
Obama’s “for the children” climate change video announcement – only a few hundred views so far
It's always "for the children" when there is no good argument. Now, I think Save the Polar Bears is a better angle to tug at the heartstrings. So cuddly, unlike bratty kids. The problem is that the bears are reproducing like crazy and are going to eat all the cute seals and all the Eskimos they can catch. But wait - the Kennedys are shooting seal pups. Too many seals? WTH?
Do the seals get a vote on that? At least the Kennedys aren't shooting the Eskimos who kill the Polar Bears and Killer Whales which would otherwise eat the supposedly "extra" seal pups, etc., etc.
I am waiting for the next crisis: Polar Bear population explosion attributed to global warming.
Tracked: Jun 23, 13:02