That is the whole problem – the sceptics are up against state sponsored science – of course anything the state does is not in need of regulation, but who is to oversee the state? This is the issue which our friends here just don’t seem to understand – mind you if one has been indoctrinated politically, the police state need not be intrusive – but it’s the ones which don’t respond to education, who remain a problem for the state.

In any case the Fabians have basically taken possession of the bureaucracy and the education system, and while one has admire their sheer persistence in staying on the message all these years, the voters do tend to upset their plans.

But with Realclimate now notig a stasis in global temperatures plus the just released paper dealing with the PETM (which I, in my heretical style link to the K-T event, and hence the sudden increase in CO2 is easily explained by the global eruption of kimberlites at that time, releasing billions of tonnes of CO2 via these eruptions, and it is the physical cause of that kimberlite eruption which will explain the associated thermal anomaly – and the CO2 followed the thermal anomaly by the way).

These are going to be fun times I think.

What I have in mind are things like making public adverse findings. Big Pharma can’t get away with burying adverse toxicity data or the results of clinical trials that show lack of efficacy. But that is just the kind of thing that goes on in climate science. Governments don’t “need” to regulate because climate science is implementing governments’ agenda. Not through conspiracy but through the grants system.

What has that got to do with anything idiot? Supposing its even true in the first place?

The main difference between big pharma scientists and climate scientists is that the latter are government scientists and thus don’t need regulation. Big Pharma is private enterprise and thought to require regulation by government.

Before you trust the experts think about the experts who work for Big Pharma. What do you think they would do if they
1. weren’t regulated by governments (because they get a large part of their income from governments, and because governments can be seen to be protecting citizens against evil exploitation) and
2. weren’t criticised by the media ?
Now, in the case of climate scientists there is
1. No regulation by governments. In fact, in practice pretty much the opposite as climate scientists need to pursue a catastrophist agenda to keep their jobs and get funding. With carbon taxes/trade governments can get hold of amuch bigger slice of our incomes.
2. negligible scrutiny by the media who have presumably decided that panic is good for business.

From what I see climate scientists do exactly what scientists in Big Pharma would do if they thought they could get away with it.

Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, AB 32. And I have spend the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession. It uses a different mechanism than Cap and Trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Up until that bill took effect, California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then in January of 2007, California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

What is it that happened in January of 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California’s economy. Let me give you one example from my district. The City of Truckee, California was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.

So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that’s not a future prediction, that is an historical fact.

Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs — exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs that the UCSB economic forecast is now using the D-word – Depression – to discuss California’s job market.

M. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means. It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing – all of which produce enormous quantities this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day – just by breathing.

So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy.

And this brings us to the fine point of it.

When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration – how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930’s, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products.

Waxman Markey is our generation’s Smoot Hawley. In fact, it’s worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley.

Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that the planet’s climate is constantly changing and that long term global warming has been going on since the last ice age. Let’s ignore the fact that within recorded history we know of periods when the earth’s climate has been much warmer than it is today and others when it has been much cooler. Let’s ignore the thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists who have concluded that human-produced greenhouse gases are a negligible factor in global warming or climate change.

Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing. In the most serious recession since the Great Depression – why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression? Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation?

M. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff. It transcends ideology and politics. This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover.

If this measure becomes law, two things are certain.

First, our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years.

Second: Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable.

From 1975 to the early eighties you say? Lets do the math then compare and contrast with this chart.
That would be about 7 and a half years? Eight maybe? Eight years before scientists tried to make their findings known because so much is at stake.
Started banging the gong “The end is neigh”.
We have had that long and longer of planetary cooling, by everyone’s measure.
Maybe it’s time to bang the gong, “The ice age is coming”?