There will be no solution until liberals stop using global warming as political leverage. As long as global warming is tied to cap and trade it will struggle for support.

There are plenty of solutions to this problem that don’t include a tax that will adversely affect low income people and industry.

Of course you’re not.

There are ways to spin it …

Which is why it shows up on climate denialist sites.

…there is no denying he more than hinted…

There is no denying that he hinted? How can you write that phrase and not see the flaw in your own argument.

I’ll point out that the title of the post RK links to and others like it, include in quotes, something that the man never said.

The problem here is that, again, climate “skeptics” are pretending that there is some vast conspiracy in the scientific community to falsify their data and their conclusions. The argument is so outlandish that Rube Goldberg would have been embarrassed to caricature it. So instead of debating the science, we get an argument about what some guy meant when he gave his personal views based on the translation of an interview in a foreign newspaper.

Here’s my take.

There will be no conservative solutions to the problems of global climate change until conservatives stop pretending that the problem does not exist.

It really doesn’t, actually. Like many deniers, you have little choice but to cite sources who actually undercut your own claims.

Lomborg agrees with all of mainstream science on the foundational facts of man-made climate change. He has repeatedly stated that human greenhouse gas emissions are having a warming effect, observable within our lifetimes, and that this will have negative impacts on our civilization. The only difference between Lomborg and Gore is that Lomborg is cheaper: believing in the smaller threat estimates and wanting to spend less money on the problem. If that’s the kind of hero you want, then by all means hold onto his cape. He’s just going to take you right where all the rest of us already are–just a little slower.

Note that Lomborg is also a well-debunked con artist whose scientific credentials are negligible, and who is usually mostly wrong even when he is a little bit right. But in this case he straight-up does not hold the opinions you project onto him.

I’m not going to go look for it, but I read a MSM write up of that a few days back. There are ways to spin it (as most things, interpretation matters), but there is no denying he more than hinted that most of the current push has to do with economic concerns – why you don’t see serious negotiations to *reduce* things *worldwide*, but rather to “redistribute” it with credits and other such schemes.

Chris can go “socialism… hehehe” all he wants, but for those of us who studied Poly Sci such is actually in line with the theory. A *core* tenant of Socialist thought is that the state is better able to establish distribution of goods\resources than any other method (I.E., central planning). There are other conditions that of course must be met for something to be “Socialist” – and we haven’t met them so obviously aren’t there yet. However “not there yet” does not equate with “not moving in that direction”, and such thinking assuredly moves the line farther towards such an outcome.

And of course the citation goes straight back to a climate denialist site.

The reason for mistrust is partisanship.

Critics are not trusted when they “debunk” every contridiction and even those that are well founded are debunked with weak arguments.

When critics admit reasons for debate, debunk only false claims, and debunk misinformation on all sides of an issue, including their own, they will deserve trust and be trusted.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth.html

A German economist and IPCC advisor recently fessed up and admitted that the “global warming” alarm was mainly about wealth redistribution, not climate.

Citation definitely needed.