By Lubos Motl

DeSmogBlog, a propagandistic blog about the climate funded by John Lefebvre, a criminal arrested for money laundering, informs us about a lawsuit filed by Danny Bloom, a radical environmentalist activist.In this lawsuit, Bloom claims to represent the “future generations of human beings on Earth - if there are any” and he wants to be personally paid USD 1 billion from those world leaders who are skeptical about the catastrophic climate change. This list is supposed to include politicians as undecided as Stephen Harper of Canada.

Bloom claims that he will donate the money to the IPCC. Of course, unless the capital will be needed to repay some money to John Lefevbre and others.

Now, I think that the probability that Bloom could win this absurd case is infinitesimally tiny. Still, it may be a useful exercise to imagine that he will. Just imagine that these internationally organized criminals - John Lefevbre, Danny Bloom, RealClimate.ORG, and many others - will also be able to take over the International Criminal Court and steal billions of dollars from any innocent individuals they dislike, according to their own choice.

After the next lawsuit, climate skeptics could perhaps be executed, too. Climate skeptics would become as threatened by these organized fanatics as the German Jews were around 1938: it became legitimate to steal their ski or furcoats and to break their windows but not to steal billions of dollars from them. Sane and human countries should leave the International Criminal Court, outlaw the climate activists, and freeze all of their assets. Yes, I am afraid that if things like Bloom’s victory in the lawsuit would occur, a world war against the climate alarmists, analogous to the war on terror, would be my preferred next step.  Read post and comments here.

Icecap Comment: Another bold arrogant move by alarmists who may be reeling by the weather not cooperating with their proposed scenarios. Desmogblog head James Hoggan is also chairman of the board of the David Suzuki (the radical environmentalist who wanted to imprison politicians who did not agree with his extreme position) and numerous alternative energy groups. Despite that obvious conflict of interest, Desmogblog maintains a phoney list claiming skeptics are all bought and paid for by big oil. The same argument is being used by alarmist professors riding the AGW gravy train, conveniently ignoring the fact that they are getting millions supporting their alarmist position. They all have won the lottery and want to be sure the annuity checks keep on coming. Expect their actions to become more and more extreme and desperate as their phrophecies continue to fail. NOAA and NASA and Hadley have taken to manipulating data to try and delay the inevitable as their budgets have been fattened by the same perversion of science.

By Senator James Inhofe

Mr. President, Americans are once again being asked to foot the bill for yet another “urgent” bailout.  In October, Congress voted for an unprecedented $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, and now much of the same alarmist rhetoric is being employed to pressure members to act quickly. The latest bailout demand making the rounds in Washington is for the Big Three auto industry. Democrats would have you believe the proposed bailout is all about saving jobs, but, having been in Washington long enough, my instincts led me to dig deeper where I unearthed green roots hiding beneath the bailout rhetoric. 

It now appears that much of what you have heard in the media about the auto bailout being about “jobs” has been misleading.  In fact, there are “usual suspects” working behind the scenes to subvert the auto bailout and ultimately betray auto workers.  The facts are these: 

The proposed $25 billion bailout of Detroit now appears to have been hijacked by the powerful environmental lobby. The November 19 Wall Street Journal asks: “When is $25 billion in taxpayer cash insufficient to bail out Detroit’s auto makers?” Answer: “When the money is a tool of Congressional industrial policy to turn GM, Ford and Chrysler into agents of the Sierra Club and other green lobbies.” According to the Wall Street Journal, the auto bailout has degenerated into a tool to “make Detroit a subsidiary of the Sierra Club.” We hear proponents of the auto bailout endlessly say it’s about jobs. But the truth is, this bailout appears to be about environmental lobbies taking over the U.S. auto industry. 

The Wall Street Journal explains: “In their public statements, proponents describe the bailout as an attempt to save jobs, American manufacturing and the middle-class way of life. But look closely and you can see that what’s really going on is an attempt to use taxpayer money to remake Detroit in the image of the modern environmental movement. Given a choice between greens and blue-collar workers, Congress puts the greens first.”

The Journal continued: “The more realistic alternative to this utopian green vision is to let GM or Chrysler file for Chapter 11 like any other company that can’t pay its bills. The immediate costs would be severe, but at least bankruptcy would provide the political and legal means for them to evolve into smaller, more competitive companies. Taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to finance a green industrial policy promoted by lobbyists and Congressmen who know nothing about what it takes to make a car—much less make a profit.” Read more here.

By Chris Morrison, BNET

Now that the EPA has finally been forced to acknowledge CO2 as a pollutant, plans for new coal plants are in limbo, and clean energy backers are happily talking up ideas to replace dirty fuels with wind, solar and other renewables. But wise greens might wait to start counting their victories until the eggs they’ve laid hatch; abruptly killing coal might not be as beneficial as many assume.

The problem is that renewables need a long runway to begin replacing the lost capacity from coal, a massive supplier of the energy pie. Take a look at this Department of Energy report, which tracks coal plants in the planning and construction phases. As the report notes, the bulk of those projects already had an uncertain future, due to regulatory worries. Even in the beginning of 2008, only 29 plants, of a total 110 listed, were actually under construction.

If built at all, those 29 plants will provide 16,534 megawatts (16.5GW) of electricity; if all 110 were built, we’d have 64.3GW of new generation. But given the combination of regulatory hurdles, court challenges, and the ongoing debt contraction, it’s reasonable to assume most of those won’t be built. Let’s be optimistic and say only half are nixed. Fudging the actual numbers a bit, we can now see 32GW of capacity left unfulfilled.

Will wind and solar, the only two renewables that can be quickly deployed for now, be enough to fill the void? If it were up to solar alone, the answer would be: Not even close. New solar capacity, whether panels for your roof or solar thermal plants out in the desert, is still being measured in tens and hundreds of megawatts, not to mention that some of the best areas for solar are far from the areas that need power. Wind power isn’t good for all areas, but it certainly has the potential to provide gigawatts of power. However, wind projects are a recession victim as well, including megaprojects at home like T. Boone Pickens’ Texas wind farm, as well as some overseas ventures like the United Kingdom’s joint Statoil/Ecoconcern project.

The trouble is that unless another form of energy like natural gas, or a sudden conservation fad among consumers, steps in to fill the gap created by old plants shutting down and new demand growth, we’ll soon be the victim of power outages equal to or worse than the Northeast Blackout of 2003.

While members of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace may be willing to pay that price, the average person - and the economy - likely won’t. Renewables, like anything else, can suffer a public relations disaster - greens should not assume that because it hasn’t happened yet, it never will. See BNET here.