A good article, though "The alternative bears no contemplation" is a bit naive. I suspect the powers that be lovingly contemplate a decimated human population and a "naturally" precipitated geographical and geopolitical reshuffle.
The minimifidianists, even more naively, think the "debate" is all about them and their myopic conservatism. Ironically, in the long term they're forcing change!
It might have been that we could salvage the present system in some compromised form, but the essence of conservatism is no compromise, so we'll have to settle for knock it down and start again. And this is what the "contemplation" and the "new money" will increasingly be invested in.
Indeed, imo the minimifidianists are unwittingly and incongruously correct; there is no saving the system as it is, nor should it be saved. We're deluded if we think we can transition to sustainable futures without wholesale attrition. Maybe ignorance is the necessary via media of human transcendence..
I have to say, bonmot, calling the benighted brethren "cynics" (a very worthy philosophy) is praise indeed! They're just the latest motley representation of human folly.
You've got to love the ironies!

"Cynics may not like what the author says but at least he links to the sources for his arguments."

Here's a source: wattsupwiththat.com, which has been steadily accumulating evidence against the AGW theory for at least four years now. Every scientific paper put forward there is fully referenced, and all the data put forward showing the absence of AGW is readily available to any member of the public, in conspicuous contrast to the secretive 'hands off!' attitude of the alarmists. Not only that, but you can make any critical comments you like as long as they don't stray into personal abuse -- another major distinction from the pro-AGW sites, where critical responses tend to vanish like the current frost in sunshine.

If you can read a week's postings on WUWT and respond intelligently with facts demonstrating why they are wrong about the lack of AGW then you will demonstrate your intellectual prowess and earn the everlasting respect of your peers in the alarmist community. If not, well you might learn something anyway.

Maurice Strong,the then secretary of the UN, instigated the IPCC.Strong is a eugenicist and radical Malthusian who is on record saying that the World's population must be dramatically reduced.

Prof Tim Ball has shown that the IPCC has cooked the figures.They are comparing figures of today increaed by the heat island affect to 50 yrs ago when there was less bitumen and buildings.Of course the figures will be distorted.They even have located instruments near ashphalt and air conditioning units.It is OK to fudge the figures since it is for a noble cause.

Climate Gate IPCC style."There is a fall in temps and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it.We have to hide the decline"

An ETS will give even more power to a few corporate elites.Only those who can afford to buy carbon credits will have the power of production.Less competition will mean higher prices for everything.

This is not about saving the planet but giving absolute power to a few elites.

Ok Arjay, putting aside you are OLO's resident conspiracy theorist - please show where "Prof Tim Ball has shown that the IPCC has cooked the figures."

And really, do you really think that experts who study the stuff don't know about the UHI effect, or that for some reason they have not included the calibration errors due to UHI in their findings?

Btw, you are still banging on about "hide the decline" where you (and others) were shown to be totally ignorant of what it means. Ear muffs and blindfolded Arjay sums it up.

Look Arjay, discuss carbon pricing, taxes, ETS for all you like ... but please don't try an pretend you know anything about the science - you clearly don't.

As to (world) population - we are 7 billion and expected to reach about 10 billion by 2050. This places enormous strains on our water, food and energy resources, not to mention national and international security. We have to find a way to adapt to these pressures, no rational being (even Strong) would suggest we employ genocide (as you seem to infer). Rather, education would be a good start - don't you think?

Unfortunately, the educated are deemed elitist these days so why should anyone like you listen?

Btw, do you really think that the cost of energy won't go up, AGW or not?

I see we had our own mini-climategate over the past few days.

The death threats the climate scientists of ANU were supposed to have been given was a hoax. There were some nasty letters, not death threats, that were up to 5 years old.

Why do the alarmists HAVE to exagerate everything?

"Why do the alarmists HAVE to exaggerate everything?"

When the facts are with you, pound the facts; when the facts are against you, pound the law; when the law is against you, pound the table. The alarmists lost their grip on the facts long ago, and are currently losing their grip on the law. We can expect to see a lot more table-pounding -- like the vicious and stupid article by Richard Glover in this Saturday's SMH -- before this is over.