Editorial: [What do we want? A massive climate swindle!  When do we want it? Now!] | StarTribune.com

Passing strong energy and climate legislation -- in particular, finally setting a price on carbon -- must be a top congressional priority in 2010.

The economic and security advantages of doing so are just as compelling as the science.
...
[Featured comment] Another Liberal Rag Story of Lies

This global warming that Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists are spewing is nothing but a money grab and power grab by the alarmists. In … read more the 70's, they were being alarmists about the global cooling and the world was entering another ice age. WTF. How come it is that other planets are experiencing the exact climate change as the Earth? It must be the oil that is being consumed here on Earth!!!!

Jennifer Marohasy » News [roundup] from Kenneth Haapala

YouTube - Fighting the Globalists - Fred Singer at the alternative Copenhagen conference

Dr. Jacek Szkudlarek interviews Professor Fred Singer of the University of Virginia about the lack of science behind the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, the global government agenda that is unfolding, and how it must be resisted politically and scientifically.

Nation's Experts Give Up | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

According to FDA spokesperson Jonathan Landau, the exiting advisors will be missed, but the nation must move forward.

"We, of course, are deeply saddened to lose America's most knowledgeable individuals in every field," Landau said. "But at the same time, it's important to recognize that their advice, however well-informed or well-intentioned, was almost always impractical."

James Hansen [advocates a massive wealth redistribution scheme based on the greatest scientific fraud in history] | Environment | The Observer

Last weekend's minimalist Copenhagen global climate accord provides a great opportunity. The old deceitful, ineffectual approach is severely wounded and must die. Now there is a chance for the world to get on to an honest, effective path to an agreement.

The centrepiece of the old approach was a "cap-and-trade" scheme, festooned with offsets and bribes – bribes that purportedly, but hardly, reduced carbon emissions. It was analogous to the indulgences scheme of the Middle Ages, whereby sinners paid the Church for forgiveness.
...
Copenhagen discussions showed that China and the United States can work together. Europe, Japan, and most developed countries would very probably agree to a similar status to that of the United States. Countries refusing to levy an across-the-board carbon fee can be dealt with via an import duty collected on products from that nation in accord with the amount of fossil fuel that goes into producing the product. The World Trade Organisation already has rules permitting such duties.

The international framework must define how proceeds from import duties are used to assure fairness. Duties on products from developing countries will probably dwarf present foreign aid to those countries. These funds should be returned to developing countries, but distributed so as to encourage best practices, for example, improved women's rights and education that helps control population growth. Fairness also requires that distribution of the funds takes account of the ongoing impacts of climate change. Successful efforts in limiting deforestation and other best practices could also be rewarded.