Last night I heard one of the scientists in Paris interviewed on As It Happens. He likened the climate change “debate” to the debate about whether cigarettes cause cancer. In that case, the tobacco companies never thought they could refute the science directly, they just tried to create as much uncertainty and appearance of controversy they could.

Reminds me of another group, one that talks about dinosaurs and Noah’s ark.

ah, that classic false choice. standard logical fallacy, often applied here. “if we prevent global warming, the cost will be too high for business to do well” however if we don’t prevent it, the cost for business will be higher… not to mention the long-term savings from efficiency…

and that ‘suck money from rich to poor’ schtick: the states in america which will be hit hardest are likely to be coal-mining states, some of the less well off states in america. however, the states likely to have an easier transition are the richer once – california, new york, massachussets. which is fine, since the standard flow of funds is from the rich “blue” states to the poorer “red” states… ironic, since it is the recipients of big government programs (at least on a state-by-state basis) are the ones who hate it…

one last thought: part of what is likely the “basically unstoppable” nature of this has to do with not being willing to do something about it. think about WWII. the US didn’t have huge manufacturing, a large air-force, sufficient navy, etc. before the war. no, the nation banded together and said “we got some shit to get done, so lets get to work”. and it happened. in 5 years we could be done with fossil fuels for electricity generation if we wanted and were willing to sacrifice/reprioritize… we could have every new car in north america going 40mpg in two model years, if we wanted. but too many assholes think what they are doing now makes too much money to bother.

again, hang the lot of them… well, not really hang them…