Here is the question: Even if we admit that man is responsible for higher carbon emissions which in turn are responsible for global warming, should we even want to reduct carbon emissions at all? This is a question being asked by Nigel Lawson who is the former Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain.

The greatest error in the current conventional wisdom is that, if you accept the (present) majority scientific view that most of the modest global warming in the last quarter of the last century — about half a degree centigrade — was caused by man-made carbon emissions, then you must also accept that we have to decarbonise our economies.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea whether the majority scientific view (and it is far from a consensus) is correct. Certainly, it is curious that, whereas their models predicted an acceleration in global warming this century as the growth in emissions accelerated, so far this century there has been no further warming at all. But the current majority view may still be right.

Even if it is, however, that cannot determine the right policy choice. For a warmer climate brings benefits as well as disadvantages. Even if there is a net disadvantage, which is uncertain, it is far less than the economic cost (let alone the human cost) of decarbonisation. Moreover, the greatest single attribute of mankind is our capacity to adapt to changing circumstances. By adapting to any warming that may occur over the next century, we can pocket the benefits and greatly reduce the disadvantages, at a cost that is far less than the cost of global decarbonisation — even if that could be achieved.

This is a very articulate explanation of why the “decarbonisation” of the world makes absolute no sense, even if we could prove such a thing is even possible or desirable.

The AGW folks want to spend more time labeling skeptics as “deniers” and then hiding data that shows what they have been saying all along may not have been correct. You can read more about how AGW “researchers” have been destroying and hiding data that doesn’t support their conclusions here.

The reality is this: in our current economic situation trying to pass cap/trade legislation and going through the massive expense of trying to decarbonize the world is not only foolish, it’s suicidal. This would cause more unemployment, great instability and higher taxes exactly at the time when we don’t need it.

The good news is that India and China are never going to agree to Copenhagen or whatever other treaty comes out so America is not likely to agree to it either. This provides cover for countries like Canada and the EU who does sign the treaty knowing full-well that we never will and thus they can use the US as a scapegoat. The truth is Canada and the EU would crap a brick the moment the United States did agree to Copenhagen because then they would actually have to abide by the agreement. As long as we use common sense then they have the perfect cover for grandstanding and being morally superior.