Lets see, I’ve got a scrounged “white box PC” that started life about 20 years ago as a x486 box (since upgraded to a 400 MHz AMD chip) with 132 MB memory and an old 10 GB disk bought from a computer recycler. Free software via Linux. That’s my GIStemp build/ test machine.

I self fund my coffee budget and my “travel budget” consists of paying the gas to go to the post office to mail my bill payments. (No Copenhagen or Bali for me…)

Yup, sure does sound more lucrative to me.

Let me ask a simple question of both the Left and the Right:

How can an economic system based on systematic, government enforced theft of purchasing power from all money holders including and ESPECIALLY the poor not be a disaster in the making?

Can we not all agree that theft is bad or is that too much to ask?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html

China has 18 large nuclear power plants under construction, India has 6, and the US has one. That one is a recent restart of a construction project abandoned decades ago. And for those of you who think nuclear is dangerous, I respond that a coal mine accident in China last month caused more fatalities than the Chernyobl screwup. The difference is that coal mining accidents aren’t news, and that Soviet nuke plants of that design have been mostly shut down.

Consider this output of just 20 minutes from British television tonight:
The ITN News at 6.30pm has a report from the Himalayas where “temperatures are rising faster than anywhere else in the world”. (Ha!). The reporter, who has no scientific credentials whatsoever, climbed inside an ice tunnel in a “dead and rotting” glacier on Everest to “prove climate change is happening” and that our leaders “must do something about climate change at Copenhagen”, etc.

This was followed by the infamous Carbon Trust’s propaganda advert with the little girl who’s dog and rabbit drowned “because of the grown-ups” turning on lights, etc.

Next up, was the Channel Four 7pm news, which all this week, we are informed, will be a “Countdown to Copenhagen Week”. Tonight’s menu was broadcast from a slum in Brazil, and the burning question was “Can we make some of the poorest people in the world better off without damaging the west’s economy?” Which was a bit rich considering they preceded the item with a description of just how the rich Brazilians travel about these days. It’s by helicopter, and that’s coined a new term “the Helicopteracy” to describe them. The real burning question from our end was why these obscenely rich people can’t pay some taxes to do the same thing, instead of bleeding us white with “carbon” taxes. Of course, this question was never asked -how dare we? This was followed by an interview with the Brazilian president who stated that the west “would pay” for their industrial progress at Copenhagen.

In this weird parallel universe, which is inhabited by all sections of the media, politicians, scientists, bureaucrats and tycoons, not one mention has been made of the biggest scientific fraud in history, and who stands to benefit from it. Most of the mainstream media journalists, like ours in Britain, are bone-idle and brain-dead zombies, only capable of swallowing and regurgitating prepackaged lying “Global Warming” propaganda pap and nothing else.

Expect more, much more…

Per your link:

>>The Swiss paper was written not by Scanlon but by Mark Halle, the Europe-based director of trade and investment for an influential environmental think-tank, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), which originated in Canada and now operates in some 30 countries. IISD, which still has heavy Canadian government support, bills itself as a research institute promoting policies that are “simultaneously beneficial to the global economy, the global environment and to social well-being.”

Oh you mean the IISD where Maurice Strong is a Dinguished Fellow and Friend of the Institute after sitting on the board? That IISD?

Just another coincidence. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Sunday Times Magazine – the entire thing was a bonus pre-Copenhagen AGW tract. It had clearly been weeks in the making. It began with an article by Brian Appleyard explaining his earlier mild scepticism and his Pauline revelation that AGW is real – and that we should all emulate his conversion. The remainder of the magazine was a selection of articles for new converts – from scare stories to home emission guilt tales to extravagant “green” Christmas presents for the Righteous. Gag reflex was on overtime!!

Shame the ST isn’t agile enough to allow its magazine to be a little more current and courageous enough for it to be a little less partial.

Allowing this “issue” to split along left/right lines is too much of a risk.

“The environment should compete with religion as the only compelling, value-based narrative available to humanity. To do that, however, it will have to make itself relevant well beyond the world of those already
concerned with the environment, including very prominently its own formal constituency. Indeed, unless UNEP succeeds in recasting the debate, it is
highly likely that the economic community will do it—badly, and on its own terms. It is already happening in the field of climate change.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,577827,00.html

Good old Krugman would probably love this idea