I was commenting on how the people you say will benefit from all the chicanery AGW alarmists are pushing for sound very much like the boogey men they claim are behind the “denialists.” So if one group (oil companies) is a bunch of fat cats gaming the system for maximum gain, logically, there’s no reason the other group (Al Gore, et al) can’t be a bunch of fat cats gaming the system for maximum gain as well.

But of course, that couldn’t possibly be true of a bunch of people who care so much about us they’re going to cram their agenda down our ignorant, unappreciative throats “for our own good,” could it?

I could happily live like the Amish tomorrow a lot easier than these urban environmentalist types. Unless my horse is still lame…

The safest position appears to be highly skeptical.

N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

So is Phil Jones a denier now? The science is not settled. In fact, it is barely a science given the slipshod way that many climate scientists have treated the data. Even if we take AGW as a given, which is probably true given I’ve seen no attacks on the basic theory, the magnitude of the problem is very much in question — even your own comment accepts the fact that any number of other factors can completely mask humanity’s effect on the environment. This goes back to the risk assessment issue. Massive efforts to mitigate AGW through the reduction in CO2 (i.e. reduction in energy consumption, and a corresponding diminishing of standard of living that will disproportionately affect the Third World) will have a known negative effect on millions, if not billions, of people. This will be done to avert an allegedly worse effect on millions, if not billions, of people. The fact that few, if any, doomsday scenarios stand up to any scrutiny leads to genuine questioning as to whether the disease is any worse than the cures proposed to date.

Consider, if you will, the idea that AGW is happening and is significant. (Two points that even Pill Jones, author of much AGW alarmism, admits are arguable by reasonable scientists.)
Why do we want to do something about it? What is the bottom line? IMHO, the only reasonable answer is to save future human lives. That is the only possible justification for the huge realignment of resources that are being called for.
Problem is, such huge realignments of resources often have a very negative impact on existing human lives, so you better be damn sure that your risk assessment has some solid foundations.

Consider the fact that the push for biofuels has helped drive the worldwide food price index to almost double the level of what it was in 2000. Buying ethanol for your car cleans the air, reduces dependency on foreign oil, and helps support third-world famine. I guess mass starvation is one way to go green.