Bob Tormey wrote:
• Sponsor independent verification of the IPCC science –
o Can’t be done. The nature of the problem eludes us, it’s beyond our science.
The Wegman Committee did it, so it can be done, at least to major portions of the science. The other portions, the speculative ones, can’t be evaluated on a black/white, right/wrong basis, but could certainly be subjected to criticisms such as “unlikely,” far-fetched,” “non-standard,” “unjustified,” etc.

• Have a real debate-
o Can’t do it. Statists control the media. You’d have to have an independent media to do this. You don’t.

The presidential debates are independent and aren’t significantly biased. There’s no reason a climate-controversy debate couldn’t similarly be independent and neutral, provided (as is done with the presidential debates) that representatives of each side are involved in all the behind-the-scenes decisions about every facet of the presentation and its rules.

My preference would be for a series of debates before separate panels of scientists in other disciplines, primarily conducted over the internet using both text and video-conferencing. Many aspects of the controversy are too technical for laymen to judge properly. (Maybe there should be debates before both sorts of audiences.)

• Adopt a ‘precautionary’ stance for policy –
o This is just a slippery slope that gives them whatever they want that we get tired of fighting for as evidenced by your willingness to support ‘cap and trade’.

“Don’t give an inch” is a formula for defeat.

This sort of precaution has also been called a “no-regrets” stance. I.e., it would involve things like promoting better insulation, encouraging a switch in heating from oil to natural gas, funding pilot projects for”new-ish” nuclear generation options and “clean coal” (especially for use abroad), funding research for “breakthrough” technologies, etc. I’m sure that this would not be considered a slippery slope toward the goal of a Copenhagen-style treaty by the warmists, but rather a diversion from it. And they’d be correct.

• We should support mechanisms such as ‘cap and trade’
o No we should not. We should do what is economical. Carbon Dioxide presents no danger. No reason not to use petrochemicals.

A flexible, market-oriented technique is superior to a dirigiste diktat. That said, the extreme level of fraud recently revealed in European carbon credit trading should make one wary of this approach.

• Sponsor independent verification of the IPCC science –
o Can’t be done. The nature of the problem eludes us, it’s beyond our science. Plus, I don’t want to pay for it. I’m trying to minimize my tax burden not spend more money entertaining socialist ideas. Even if we were to satisfy this elusive proof, the statists would just invent another boogey man for my tax dollars to fight.
• Have a real debate-
o Can’t do it. Statists control the media. You’d have to have an independent media to do this. You don’t.
• Adopt a ‘precautionary’ stance for policy –
o This is just a slippery slope that gives them whatever they want that we get tired of fighting for as evidenced by your willingness to support ‘cap and trade’.
• Fighting the corporatism
o My ballot initiative , see our discussion on the libertarian blog.
• We should support mechanisms such as ‘cap and trade’
o No we should not. We should do what is economical. Carbon Dioxide presents no danger. No reason not to use petrochemicals.
• support policies that encourage the most local and voluntary solutions
o Certainly don’t stand in their way but with emphasis on voluntary rather than local and this would preclude ‘cap and trade’ entirely.

Cavemen start Global Warming!

I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at http://www.igormaro.org

Compare Obama Care vs Igor Care at Obama Care vs Igor Care

No more “made by china” unless approved by a green label.

China frustrated the COP top, now people act themselves.
No more “made by china” unless approved by a green label.

Start yourselves, start today, start small!
If governments want to join, they shloud implement green labels.

We make china transparent! That should be done anyway.
How can you expect your government to take responsibility if you do not even bother about a green
label ?

Imagine a green label, next to “made by china” (hi hi)
People who care act. Hypocritical to ask your covernment and at the same time you want to buy communist party polluting toys. that’s liberal.