Climate Change: The Resilience Option (far better than climate stasis) — MasterResource

This focus on creating climate stasis has led to policy proposals that would have been laughed at or dismissed as wacky conspiracy theories in the 1980s. But mainstream anti-climate-change activists are proposing nothing less than the establishment of global weather control through energy rationing, regulations, and taxes, all managed by a global bureaucracy with a goal of leading humanity into a future that will become smaller, more costly, and less dynamic over time. Environmental groups, along with organizations like the United Nations IPCC, are calling for nothing less than imposing climate stasis on a chaotic system.

Where should global warming rank on our list of priorities?

...most of the people labeled skeptics believe global warming actually is a serious problem [do they?]

Peter Foster: On the path to dependency - FP Comment

A report this week from the Boston Consulting Group revealed that governments plan to subsidize electric car manufacturers to the tune of $15 billion over the next five years. Electric cars are just one of numerous drunk-under-the-lamppost technologies currently being boosted by governments. When it comes to this ruinously costly alternative “path,” there could be nothing better, from a taxpayers’ point of view, than being left behind.

Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » India Sends A Message To The West: We Will Not Sacrifice Prosperity Over “Climate Change”

The prospects for a climate change treaty coming out of December’s Copenhagen Summit just got slimmer:
...
And by “do our bit,” Prime Minister Singh means loot the treasuries of rich countries:
...
Of course, there’s no way that the West will agree to this. Which probably means that whatever comes out of Copenhagen will be meaningless and watered down.

A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed badly « Watts Up With That?

[Suzy Hansen] While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”