Emission trading and climate change – page 375

…Surprisingly they found that we might all be paying a bit too much for power. They attribute this to the possibility that govts in the past may have made some poor decisions and energy suppliers might possibly be ripping us off. Who would have thought that could happen? Some of the poorest decisions of all time have been to sell publicly owned assets, assets which either charged net costs to consumers or returned surpluses to the government for the benefit of the owners (who just happened to be the aforementioned consumers). It has always been done always to buy lollies to toss at electors. Howard mastered lolly tossing as the ultimate political art-form, and every political decision since his era has been afflicted with the consequences of an electorate swayed into voting bias by political lolly tossing.


The "free market" advocates may argue with this, but someone needs to point out that the "free market" is, and always was, a myth. A profit somewhere results from a loss somewhere else, maybe deferred, but still a loss. The "free market" depends on growth for its myth to continue but despite the squealing of its advocates, growth and prosperity does not and never did need the "free market" to continue.

Marc Morano’s new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change” (Regnery Publishing) is just in time to refute the argument that “climate change” will destroy all life on Earth. It is a mark of Morano’s dark humor that he features as an “endorsement” of the book a comment by the liberal Daily Kos, which calls Morano “evil personified.”

In the book’s foreword, the late John Coleman, who was a meteorologist, TV weatherman and co-founder of The Weather Channel, writes: “We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the ‘climate change’ establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future.”

Among the facts revealed in Morano’s book are these: The world spends $1 billion a day to “prevent” global warming; A UN scientist says the “97 percent consensus” on global warming was “pulled from thin air,” presumably hot air from many politicians; scientific organizations claim climate change ‘consensus,’ but have not polled their members; climate policies are not helping, but “crushing the world’s poor”; The Paris climate accord theoretically postpones global warming by just four years, but will cost $100 trillion if fully implemented; climate change has been blamed for prostitution, barroom brawls, airplane turbulence and war; one climate activist is quoted as saying we should “protect our kids by not having them”; recent “hottest year” claims are based on statistically meaningless year-to-year differences; Antarctica is actually gaining, not losing ice; carbon dioxide levels today are 10 times lower than in some past Ice Ages.

The following “cults” have concluded that human activity is the primary source of global warming: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society and the Geological Society of America. The list of scientific organizations is much longer, though Mr. Thomas would probably object to any with a foreign address. Another well known “cult,” the U.S. Military, is increasingly sounding alarms about the challenges that global warming will bring.

It’s disturbing to see Mr. Thomas disparage the work of the scientific community. His line of reasoning involves irrelevant arguments and misrepresents what is known. He cites a study showing an increase in ice mass in eastern Antarctica as evidence we need not worry about sea level rise. Conveniently, he ignores the consensus (which includes the author of the eastern Antarctica study) that ice mass increases will not abate sea level rise.