I mentioned in another thread my dismay to the anti-intellecualism embraced by ‘conservatives’ (playing fast and loose with that term).

Instead of trying to prove a non-existant conspiracy theory, opponents of conferences like COP15 should start looking at the answers being considered.

I would disagree with more bureacracy and international bodies to monitor emissions output. It’s like trying to make sure that a lung cancer patient only smokes 2 cigarettes a day instead of 10.

I see that trying to prompt a Green Race between countries is more beneficial. The pros are obvious: (i) if you can have a fuel that isn’t as expensive as oil, but as effective, you save money (ii) reducing harm to your environment means less costs in keeping things clean (iii) no dealing with countries for the sake of oil and therefore granting them legitimacy (looking at you Gulf countries).

I don’t necessarily accept that the ‘science is settled’. Science is never settled. However, most scientists are certain there (i) there is climate change and (ii) a degree of it is man-made. The important debate is not whether these findings are real but what are the proposed solutions. By refusing to accept the science, opponents of government intervention miss the real debate since they have no proposed solutions.

Accepting the science is not accepting prosposed solutions. It’s just a ticket to the debate.