Doesn't work. Doesn't add up. Doesn't matter. It's Global Warming, right?

How much more evidence do you need? Global warming is a Faith, impervious to reason:

Reporter Paul Kelly

Australian Reporter Paul Kelly: ''How, as shadow treasurer, could you allow the leader to commit the party to the 50 per cent renewable energy target without any framework of analysis, without any work done on the impact of the scheme, the costs, any analysts whatsoever? ''
Labor dimwit MP Chris Bowen: ''Well, because I believe in ­renewable energy.''

UPDATE
Labor’s indifference to the terrible cost of its global warming faith is astonishing:

LABOR’S ambitious plan to cut carbon emissions by 40 to 60 per cent by 2030 would deliver a devastating blow to the economy, stripping a massive $600 billion from economic growth over the next 15 years, its own modelling commissioned in government has revealed. 

The emissions cut would also cost tens of thousands of jobs and would likely lead to the closure of all 37 coal-fired power stations in Australia.
The shocking predictions are contained in a 2013 Treasury and Department of Industry and Climate Change modelling report.  

Labor’s plan, which the party adopted last month at its national conference in Melbourne, would have to assume a carbon price of $209 a tonne by 2030, according to analysis of the models. It would also push wholesale power prices up 78 per cent over the next 15 years, radically increasing power bills for homeowners and businesses.

Simon Benson:

THE 2013 Mitigation Scenarios report by ­Treasury and a string of others is the report that Labor in government didn’t want anyone to see… Labor will lose this argument — again — if it isn’t upfront about what its policies will cost.

Daily Telegraph:

If Labor wants to create a welfare-dependent underclass of Australians whose former industries have been rendered non-viable by government legislation, this is exactly the right way to go about it.

UPDATE
But for all the crazy demonization of coal, the rest of the world is gobbling more of the stuff: 

A new study by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences detects an unmistakable “coal renaissance” under way that shows this mineral of fossilized carbon has again become “the most important source of energy-related emissions on the global scale.”
Coal is expanding rapidly “not only in China and India but also across a broad range of developing countries — especially poor, fast-growing countries mainly in Asia,” the study finds.

Or take Turkey:

Over 80 new coal-fired power stations are proposed in Turkey, the biggest coal rush in the world after China and India.

A rational word from the U.S.:

Carly Fiorina, Republican presidential candidate, and an outsider tip to be the party’s nominee for vice president:

The scientists that tell us that climate change is real and caused by man made activity, also tell us that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all. So, when I see a state like California destroy lives and livelihoods with environmental regulations that will make no difference at all to climate change, when I see the Obama administration take that same regulation and apply it nationally – it will make not difference at all, yet we’re destroying people’s lives and livelihoods – I wonder, why are we doing this? Why are we doing this when it won’t have any impact? 

So I think the answer to this problem is innovation, not regulation. But I must say, it angers me when liberals say “I’m prepared for you to lose your job in the name of sending a signal to…” whom? China could care less? In fact, China is delighted that we are not spending any time or energy figuring out clean coal, because they’re going to go do it.

The Way I See It.......Bjorn Lomborg, a top Danish Economist researching the terrible cost that global warming hysteria is costing, cites The Conversation (and specifically a media academic) as well as the Guardian as organisations and people which had peddled false information. When he pointed these out, no corrections were made. Even two Australian Universities refused to have him set up a think-tank on their campus. So much for free inquiry and speech.

You see, being wrong when you are a warming alarmist is just evidence of an excess of virtue. What’s to apologise for?