The "inconvenient truth" is that AGW a scam. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred piece professor of planetary and atmospheric sciences at MIT, submitted a paper last month. For those who don't know, Lindzen is THE go-to guy, amongst the smartest people on the whole damn planet. After twenty years of gathering and meticulously analyzing the data, he's come to the conclusion that, scientifically speaking, AGW is horse crap. The esteemed Lord Monkton has this on the subject:

The amount of outgoing radiation escaping into space is supposed to reduce enormously as the temperature warms down here. That's the official theory because of all the greenhouse gases getting in the way. What is actually happening is that nearly all of it is getting out into space just as before. So the warming effect of CO2 over the whole of the next 100 years is going to be well below 2 Fahrenheit degrees, just negligible, it might even be 1 Fahrenheit degrees. And now that that is known by measurement, all of the UN's report on which this treaty is based are out of date, and the Supreme Court's own judgment in Massachusetts V. EPA where they said CO2 was a pollutant because it might cause warming are now also out of date. Because the facts have changed, and it's now been a measured result. There's no argument with it. Nobody's dared to argue with this paper.

Lord Monkton also had this to say a couple of weeks back on Glenn Beck. The fun begins at the one minute mark:

Lord Monkton went pretty fast there, so let me spell it out:

Monkton: Right, here is why there is no point, economically speaking, in doing anything to curb our carbon emissions, even if, as we now know in fact, the UN is wrong. But let's pretend it's right. Here's why nothing will work.

We burn...we burn thirty billion tons a year of CO2 worldwide. All right? Thirty billion tons a year. Now, that is the equivalent of two parts per million per year in the atmosphere. So that's fifteen million parts...fifteen million tons per part per million. All right? Are you with us so far?

Glenn: Not really, but I'll pretend, yes.

Monkton: Good, right, that's very simple; Thirty divided by two, fifteen billion, okay. With us so far. Now, the UN says we're going to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere unless we do anything about it. By 468 parts per million in the next century. Four-six-eight PPMV. So that means if you multiply that by that (15 million PPM by 468 PPM) you get seven trillion tons we're going to emit of CO2 if we don't do any mitigation over next century. Seven trillion tons.

Okay. Now, they say that those seven trillion tons are going to cause seven Fahrenheit of warming in the next century. That's wrong, but that's what they say. That means that in order to forestall one Fahrenheit degree of warming, you have to forgo the emission of one trillion tons of CO2. Now, divide one trillion tons by the number of tons, the thirty billion tons per year that we started with that we're burning at the moment worldwide, and how many years is it going to take before we have saved one Fahrenheit degree?

(pointless chatter omitted, I ain't typing all that.)

It's thirty-three years for ONE Fahrenheit degree. Now, thirty-three years means NO automobiles anywhere on the planet. No electricity. No planes, no trains, no hospitals, no factories, no carbon emission at all, for thirty-three years just for ONE Fahrenheit degree.

That is why it is absolutely no point trying to mitigate carbon emissions, it makes not the slightest difference to the climate. End of lesson.

To rid ourselves of the 7 trillion tons estimated, we would have to live in caves for the next TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY-ONE YEARS. Does anyone see Al Gore giving up his mansion that burns twenty times more electricity in a month than the average home in a year to live in a cave for two hundred and thirty-one HOURS? Please. He won't even give up meat, even though his beloved IPCC has declared that meat causes 18% of the greenhouse gases that's "killing us" (as compared to all the vehicles on the planet, from mopeds to the Space Shuttle, which accounts for only 13%).

Cap and Trade, Copenhagen, Kyoto protocols, living green, buying an hybrid...NONE of these stupid things are going to do ANYTHING other than separate people from their money.

No country on the planet does more and spends more to protect the environment than the US. None. Not Japan, not Denmark, not England, not Canada, NOBODY. We're already doing MORE than our fair share, thank you very much. If this is such a dire situation, then the rest of the world needs to at least MATCH our efforts. Until then, they can all lick my carbon footprint.

Crossposted at JBYP