Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Seriously dealing with the threat of climate change would require government to heavily regulate corporations and subsidize renewable energy. It would entail a strong international body, most likely boosting the power of the UN. It would bring an end to the inefficient and energy-wasting free-trade agenda, as localizing economies would become necessary to sustain communities. And, most importantly, confronting climate change demands addressing climate justice for developing nations suffering from the pollution of industrialized nations, or more simply, a redistribution of wealth from North to South.

pro-AGW agenda. What is that agenda?

Anti AGW science poses a threat to all that the Pro AGWers seek.

The fact that you and the others can't see how narrow and single minded you all are towards anyone that does not agree with you or the AGW agenda, says more than to the fact that this is all a perfect example of fanaticism, than anything else.

e U.S. economy remains only about 13 percent energy efficient. That still unacceptably high level of inefficiency either will be allowed to remain in place and therefore leave the U.S. mired in lackluster economic activity … or it will be tackled head-on, leading to new efficiency advances and unleashing robust future economic growth in the U.S. For example, Japan and several European countries are about 20% efficient, a factor of 1.5 higher than the U.S.

How big might the next round of potential energy efficiency be? If we invested in more energy productive technologies, energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouses gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050. And that gain in energy efficiency would not only mean reduced greenhouse gas emissions, it would result in lower energy bill for consumers.