What's really involved in meeting those pesky carbon targets

I'm not a huge believer that humans have caused significant warming. The more I read the less I believe it. I do believe that we should attempt to keep it clean while we're here. Dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere isn't as big an issue as some of the other stuff we dump into the air, ground and water but I'm ok with moving to the post carbon energy phase because I believe that's where we will eventually end up. I'm a huge fan of a technological future. Problem is wind, solar and hydro aren't well postitioned to take up the slack if we suddenly decide to shutdown all the fossile fuel driven power plants, in fact they are so poorly positioned to cover the demand that I've often thought that the goal of the environmentalists pushing for action and results NOW is for us to all starve and freeze to death in the dark.

mosey on over and check out this article for a reality check

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Build-more-nukes-or-head-back-to-the-Dark-Ages-70308337.html

The Hockey Stick is Dead

In what may be the scientific scandal of the decade, should it ever be reported, Steve McIntyre has proven that the famous "hockey stick" that showed dramatic global warming was a fake (for the second time).

The Briffa temperature graphs have been widely cited as evidence by the IPCC, yet it appears they were based on a very carefully selected set of data, so select, that the shape of the graph would have been totally transformed if the rest of the data had been included.
Kieth Briffa used 12 samples to arrive at his version of the hockey stick and refused to provide his data for years. When McIntyre finally got hold of it, and looked at the 34 samples that Briffa left out of his graphs, a stark message was displayed. McIntyre describes it today as one of the most disquieting images he’s ever presented.

If all the tree rings are combined, the graph looks like this below. (I’ve added the black thick line to the original to make the merged data stand out). Obviously today is not as warm as things were 1000 years ago (at least not in far north Russia), and it’s also clear things have been warming since 1800 in Yamal.

Source ICECAP
Original Steve McIntyre

This is the killer quote:

Thus the key ingredient in a lot of the studies that have been invoked to support the Hockey Stick, namely the Briffa Yamal series (red line above) depends on the influence of a thin subsample of post-1990 chronologies and the exclusion of the (much larger) collection of readily-available Schweingruber data for the same area.

It's a fake folks, science in service of ideology, or at a minimum science in the service of more funding. We should not be making public policy and subjecting ourselves to ill concieved cap and trade schemes based on lies and damn lies. Since this doesn't fit the current narrative I expect it to be ignored by the pocket media.