He says of Copenhagen, "Its organizers had hoped that it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices." He added, "Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man-made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant..."
Those skeptics haven't looked at the data and seen how off the charts global warming is getting (or they don't understand what they are looking at, they don't care, or they have some other reason for denying reality).
From A Norweigian Study, "Public concern over global warming correlates negatively with national wealth":
Both psychological and sociological factors affect the willingness of laypeople to acknowledge the reality of global warming, and to support climate policies of their home countries. In this paper, I analyse a cross-national dataset of public concern about global warming, utilising data from 46 countries. Based on earlier results at the national and regional level, I expect concern to be negatively correlated to national measures of wealth and carbon dioxide emissions. I find that gross domestic product is indeed negatively correlated to the proportion of a population that regards global warming as a serious problem. There is also a marginally significant tendency that nations' per capita carbon dioxide emissions are negatively correlated to public concern. These findings suggest that the willingness of a nation to contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions decreases with its share of these emissions. This is in accordance with psychological findings, but poses a problem for political decision-makers. When communicating with the public, scientists ought to be aware of their responsibility to use a language that is understood by laypeople.
Apparently Obama's suggested plan is:
to curb US emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020
(less than calls by the European Union, Japan and UN scientists -- but the first concrete numbers put on the table by the world's largest economy and second biggest polluter (AFP).
30 percent reduction in emissions by 2025
42 percent by 2030
83 percent by 2050
From the Barak Obama website:
The country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century. For too long, politicians in Washington have been beholden to special interests, but no longer. Our new, responsible energy policy recognizes the relationship between energy, the environment, and our economy and leverages American ingenuity to put people back to work, fight global warming, increase our energy independence and keep us safe.
Will is concerned about the 83% target - that it is unattainable. But 2050 is 40 years away - by then there will be someone else to reevaluate the consequences. Plus there may not be the oil per capita to burn anyway.
Will quotes, "The Financial Times' peculiar response to the CRU materials is: The scientific case for alarm about global warming "is growing more rather than less compelling."
And Will does not buy it. He skews any sort of comment so as to be fuel for his fire. His intention if to be daft because he doesn't like the alternative.
He asserts, "The travesty is the intellectual arrogance of the authors of climate-change models partially based on the problematic practice of reconstructing long-term prior climate changes. On such models we are supposed to wager trillions of dollars -- and substantially diminished freedom."
As it happens and as I have posted previously - what is actually occurring is almost always "worse than they expected." There are already massive problems. Will refuses to look. He is like the monkeys - "see no evil", "hear no evil".
"Tens of billions of dollars are being dispensed, as by the U.S. Energy Department, which has suddenly become, in effect, a huge venture capital operation, speculating in green technologies."
Conservatives such as Will should not be so distraught. It's not all bad. Some companies will grow - others lose out. That's the way capitalism goes. In the UK - new housing is going to have to meet stringent standards. So what - there have always been building codes. Having codes that address climate and emission goals is not so terrible.
Will is promoting mistrust, "Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered."
Perhaps Will is projecting his own messiah complex. He has his truth based on nothing but suspicion and cynicism. He seems to think that the traditional rules of power apply to this and every sort of situation.