<p>
[quote]
This is akin to the tobacco industry saying "cigarettes cause cancer, please regulate us."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They already say that... on every box. Keep in mind though, with all of the government anti smoking campaigns... they don't actually want people to stop smoking. Every state takes in millions of dollars in tax revenue from smokers each year. If everyone stopped smoking, then the government would need a new way to get this money.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Meanwhile, we have a few scientists (and your guy is a physicist; this is sort of a like a veterinarian trying to prescribe treatment to a person dying of cancer) who are skeptical. But in a world where there are noble prize winning scientists denying that HIV causes AIDS… well, single scientists on either side of the issue don’t seem that credible. But humongous organizations of scientists with similarly humongous reputations to protect, along with oil companies that have a disinterest in speaking the truth, are, I think, extremely credible when they all unambiguously state that this is a problem and that we are causing it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why has the worry changed from "global warming" to "climate change"? No matter what humans do, we cannot stop the climate from changing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what would have to happen to change your mind?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The people who keep championing this cause... need to ACT like there is a problem. The UN cannot host climate conferences in remote locations. Al Gore needs to not fly around in a private plane. The legislators who support wind turbines off the coast, but not where it can be seen from their district, need to stop. When the suggested solution is pollute less instead of randomly introduce more taxes that don't even go to funding green initiatives like this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Obama administration has proposed using the majority of the money generated from a cap-and-trade plan to pay for its middle-class tax cuts, while using about $120 billion to invest in renewable-energy projects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/</a></p>
<p>That's $120 billion of ~$2 trillion. Or roughly FIVE PERCENT.</p>
<p>This is supposed to be the plan to reduce pollution. All it does is make things more expensive, and a SMALL FRACTION will be invested in green energy. If the goal is actually to help the environment, then ALL of the revenue should be put back into that. Instead, we are using the "environment" to fund other government programs.</p>
<p>Honest question: How do you feel about that? Do you think the money should all go to green initiatives? Or are you content with the government using climate change, something you think is very important, as a cover to fund other programs?</p>
<p>I want the people who champion these climate issues to ACT like they are a real danger (not just talk about it), and then I will take another look at the situation. As I said, I fully support a cleaner society... I just don't believe the hype yet.</p>