The point is that our attitude towards life doesn’t effect what goes on outside of our head. Particularly when we are talking about physical processes.

So while we might laugh at the pathological fears that these people exhibit to the consequences of human action. And thats one angle of attack against this filth one supposes.

But surely what to drive home is their total lack of evidence and their constant lying. Their relentless dishonesty and the fact that they’ve got EVERYTHING wrong and ass-backwards.

I see far more INTENTION in the wrong-doing of the energy-deprivation-crusade then some people seem to.

We might laugh at what we see as Lamberts supposed pathological fears. But its his relentless dishonesty, his lack of evidence, his refusal to come up with evidence, and his DDT-bureaucratisation-holocaust-denial that really pisses me off.

And a good reason to talk about financing all our tax cuts from firing all the taxeaters.

1. It favours econmoic freedom – the sort of things which would be done to adapt mean everyone looks after their own stuff. For example, each city builds its own dykes to cope with sea level rise.

2. While the science is fairly clear that temperatures are rising, there is a significant risk that a major cause is something other than CO2. Only adaptation covers all causes.

It’s almost fear mongering in the opposite direction:

“The public embrace of a movement as dreadfully destructive as environmentalism brings to mind the rush to embrace Hitler and the Nazi Party in the Germany of 1932 and 1933″
“Nazism was a catastrophe. Environmentalism has the potential to be an even greater catastrophe—a far greater catastrophe than Nazism: one that will result in the deaths of billions rather than millions. This is because it is the diametric opposite of economic liberalism on a global scale. In contrast to liberalism and its doctrine of the harmony of the rightly understood self-interests of all men, environmentalism alleges the most profound conflict of interests among people. It implies that there is a major economic benefit to be obtained through the death of billions of fellow human beings, that, indeed, the well-being and prosperity of the survivors depends on the extermination of those billions.”

The article is actually stating that to bring US CO2 emissions into proportion with the rest of the world, and allowing for population growth, that by 2050, the US would have to reduce CO2 emission by 94%.

Personally, I was thinking the other day that it would actually be a good thing if CO2 had a significant influence on climate, because it is something we can easily control if needed, compared to solar events. However a free market system with no government envolvement would achieve the best results. And that’s the real issue people don’t understand.

I actually think a review of government subsidies and some rejigging of the tax system could go quite a significant way towards meeting the current demands of the more reasonable AGW proponents, whilst being mostly benign in economic terms. Certainly a shift away from income tax to indirect tax is something I generally favour.

The question is where do the demands end. Fossil fuels in the transport sector are already subject to large taxes and the alternatives are not exactly leaping out of the laboratory. Incentives matter but you can’t readily entice blood out of a stone.

Two that attracted a veneer of plausibility at the time were Malthus’ population explosion and The Club of Rome’s limits to growth.

I could also mention Hanrahan http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanrahan.html, except it was a piss take. And of course there’s aliens and meteorites, which many think ought to be a piss take.

Global warming will turn out to be no different. I just hope the economy is not stuffed in the meantime. The problem is not that these doom-religions come and go (that seems inevitable), but that the government is increasingly pressured to “do something”.