Green nonsense

To combat a problem which probably doesn't exist, the House narrowly passed last week a bill to restrict emissions of carbon dioxide (to 83 percent of 2005 levels by 2020 and to 17 percent by 2050).

If the Waxman-Markey bill, named after its Democratic sponsors, Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, were to work exactly as its sponsors claim, global temperatures 100 years from now are projected to be one tenth of a degree Celsius cooler than they otherwise would have been.

We'd pay a lot for that tenth of a degree, though how much is in dispute. Cost estimates range from about $100 per family when the bill would go into effect in 2012 to $3,900 per family.
...
Despite Mr. Obama's honeyed assurances, Americans are suspicious. In a Rasmussen poll released Tuesday, 42 percent of respondents said Waxman-Markey would hurt the economy, compared to just 19 percent who thought it would help (15 percent said it would make no difference; 24 percent were undecided).
...
Jack Kelly is a columnist for The Blade and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

There is No Evidence by Dr. David Evans | Climate Realists

A single mistake in any one of these can invalidate the climate models. Typical engineering models that mimic reality closely contain no untested assumptions, material omissions, guesses, or gross approximations. They are the result of mature understanding of the reality being modelled, and have been tested ad nauseum in a wide range of circumstances. On the other hand, climate science is in its infancy, individual models routinely fail most tests, the climate models are riddled with untested assumptions and guesses, they approximate the atmosphere with cells a hundred kilometres square and hundreds of meters high, and they do not even attempt to model individual cloud formations or any feature smaller than the cell size. Don’t let the word “model” fool you into thinking climate models are better than they are.

Manchester Report: [Should we "invest" the public's savings in a massive swindle?] | Environment | guardian.co.uk

The British public could invest their savings in the UK's renewable energy revolution and reap the financial rewards of helping to save the planet, under ambitious plans to be discussed this weekend.

The Public Interest Research Centre, a thinktank based in Wales, says the government could sell "energy bonds" to pay for the required investment. The scheme would be similar to war bonds, which galvanised financial support in Britain during the second world war.
...
Tim Helweg-Larsen, director of the Public Interest Research Centre, said: "To finance renewable energy on the scale required, Britain is going to need hundreds of billions of pounds. Energy bonds are a way to unlock large amounts of money from individuals and institutional investors."

He added: "Make no mistake, this is an incredibly expensive project, but it also has very good rates of return on investments. We should be creating the opportunity for the people of Britain to invest in their own future and a secure climate."