[homeomorphic]

> Man-made climate warning is most likely a hoax that fuels a multi-billion-dollar industry and is used, among other things, to erect protectionist barriers against Chinese and Indian cars. So there are extremely powerful vested political and economic interests to ensure that there's no possibility of an honest debate, even to the point of falsifying data I would suspect (never mind the indoctrination of young children across most of the western world).

What you present here is, as far as I can tell, an argument that there are (well-monied) interests that stand to gain from having people believe in AGW. That is a valid point to make, but it does nothing to prove the conspiracy that you sketch. Do you have any proof?

You go on (sorry, it's cumbersome to quote on my phone) to suggest that the fact that there are people who take a religious view towards environmentalism matters for the debate. I agree to a certain extent that this is a problem, but the solution is simple: don't listen to the enviro-religious people. Listen instead to the science.

[MarcusBrutus]

Even assuming that man-made global warming is true and that high concentrations of CO2 is a bad thing, what does science tell me that's really actionable? Coordination is impossible in prisoner's dilemma type games. No solution, no problem. The only way to "solve" the "problem" is with world-wide totalitarian measures which would produce untold misery as a side effect. I 'd much rather have the sea level go up 2 meters. The crying meteorologist is to me on a par with the British young woman who had an abortion "for the environment". To recap: powerful interests, alarming indications of intellectual fraud (e.g. accusations of data massaging, gradually speaking more of "climate change" than "global warming"), nothing to do that's compatible with me pursuing my interest, yes selfish interest - is there another kind? -, in a market economy. Case closed for me.