Obama's Carbon Busters - WSJ.com

A team of Al Gore's protégés takes over energy policy.
---
After the selection of a largely centrist economic team, liberals have been asking when President-elect Obama would give them a seat at the table. Well, now we know, and Americans should strap themselves in. Mr. Obama is stocking his energy shop with the greenest of greens who want to move fast on a very aggressive climate agenda. Here come the carbon busters.
...
As for the "team of rivals" hype, the rest of Mr. Obama's energy list is heavy with Ms. Browner's acolytes. Lisa Jackson, for 16 years a top EPA enforcement officer, will now run that agency. At the White House Council on Environmental Quality will be Nancy Sutley, who was Ms. Browner's special assistant at EPA. At a Congressional hearing last year, Ms. Browner declared that trying to eliminate carbon -- a main input of industrial civilization -- "need not bankrupt us." As a standard for policy, that's not exactly reassuring. [Via Gore Lied]

Global Shamming: Greens prop up scam while snow piles up

Funny. You have two different realities, apparently--all within the same news cycle.

Climate Research News » Autocar Readers Defy Emissions Beliefs

Add to this that during the Paleozoic and mesozoic periods co2 content was several thousand PPM and has steadily decreased in an almost linear fashion to present where climate is more stable than it has ever been.
If co2 was able to cause a runaway feedback mechanism then it would have done so rather than declining to present day levels and one should not that temperature has remained stable throughout these periods except for ice ages.

CO2sceptics News Blog | Consensus is no guarantee of scientific fact

The second claim made is that TV personalities are somehow unqualified due to their lack of peer-reviewed publications in meteorology. But from their online biographies, it is apparent that any one of these accredited meteorologists is at least as qualified to expound on the subject as career politician and former Vice President Al Gore. In any case, that argument is a straw man, as there are many other reputable scientists who are publishing peer-reviewed works that challenge the global-warming consensus.

The final claim -- that there is no downside to investment in clean energy -- is also false. Every dollar spent "chasing after windmills" is a dollar that cannot be spent on improving roads, or invested in retirement accounts, or used to improve schools, or spent enjoying a movie with one's family. One estimate is that countries have spent more than $243 billion on adhering to the demands of the Kyoto Protocol in exchange for a 0.003-degree Celsius reduction in global warming by 2050. Surely we can find better uses for our hard-earned money.