The global warming nutjobs themselves admitted that global warming was in error when they switched their language to "climate change". They made this switch right after reports were released showing that the climate was not warming up.
This labelling anyone who doesn't agree with your position a "neocon" is insulting and intellectually dishonest. I don't believe the climate change hysteria for very solid scientific reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with Fox news or any of the lunatic "right" nutjobs on TV or the radio.
I am a Goldwater conservative on fiscal issues, a libertarian on social issues, and a constitutionalist on government issues. So trying to label me a "neocon" doesn't hold water. What does Bush have to do with this issue? I didn't get any of my facts that underlie my opinion on this from Bush.
You make the assumption that climate change is/will be 'damaging'. Great Britain, Greenland, Canada, and the Scandinavian countries all had global warming in the middle ages, vinyards in the northern British Isles, dairy farms in Greenland, the people in these areas thrived, they were not damaged. What proof can you offer that the climate change you are predicting will be "damaging"?
I also completely reject the "solution" that the climate change hysterians are proposing because they won't do anything except move trillions of dollars from people that they don't like to people that they do like (themselves and their cronies).
Now if you want to talk about energy conservation and developing new sources of energy (because it makes so much sense for so many reasons to do so) without trying to shove the church of climate change doctrine down my throat I am ready, willing, and able to discuss it and I agree that it needs to be done. But if that is the goal then say it is the goal and properly fund it directly and don't try to force on me some charlatan shell game called cap and trade where all the money stolen from rate payers will not end up achieving these goals (it won't).
I think that most Americans are rational enough and patriotic enough that if conservation and creating new sources of energy was promoted for the benefits it will bring our country and was presented HONESTLY "we will need to undertake these N number of projects which will cost this X amount of money over the next Y years", I think they would support it. But, because the climate change hysterians are trying to bully us and scare us into accepting their word for it and their "solution", then very few support acheiving these goals.
