Seriously, is there not some confusion here? Full employment can indeed be achieved by mandated or tax-funded make work projects (be they security guards to save us from terrorists or people working on methods of making electricity at twice the current cost). However, there is a real cost in terms of declining living standards as an hour’s wage buys less and less of what people really want. Economic progress is measured not by employment figures but by rising real wages (falling not rising costs for goods and services).

It seems that there is still a heavy onus of proof on those who would impose these burdens upon us to prove the “human caused” adverse climate change thesis. If one looks at how well financial modelling has fared recently why would one quickly believe either climate change models or economic modelling projecting events and costs out 50 or 100 years?