Bit too simplistic. Need to be able to attack the exaggeration and politicization for aims that have nothing to do with the climate. We have seen this again and again and again with the left pushing for greater government involvement in and/or control of health care, education, retirements, transportation, finances, the economy and now the environment.[/quote]
The problem with this response is twofold. First you are categorizing any attempt to address the issue as redistributing wealth, I can see the logic when applied to Kyoto, but if a direct tax was applied to fossil fuels and perhaps offset by a reduction in corporate tax to ease the burden on business, I don’t see how you reach the conclusion you do.
Second you conflate the hysteria surrounding global warming with what we know about global warming itself. Where do you get the idea that AGW is only accountable for 15% of the current warming? Seems to me you need to fudge the figures in order to minimize the effect AGW is having, which as I said, makes the moral dilemma of not doing anything seem so much more palatable. Just pretend it’s a lot less than virtually everyone suggests, that it’s a good thing. I hear you Fred, you go on and keep telling yourself that, if it provides comfort for you.
Just don’t expect anyone to want to talk more deeply on what to do, at what cost, and what it will achieve. That would be pretty pointless as you reject the mainstream scientific opinion. It would be kind of like discussing the moral dilemma of unwanted pregnancies resulting from rape with Todd Akin who thinks this is a non issue, because of some bullshit he just made up. Or…care to back up that 15% figure with some hard facts?