Only an idiot would argue that humans are not having an increased impact on the environment. Did I ver make that claim anywhere? No. Do I deny that the global climate is changing. No, I don’t do that either. So what exactly I am not getting here?

Waxman-Markey won’t solve human climate change issues. The law would however would significantly lessen the capacity of humans to respond to climate change through severe economic disruption and loss of economic activity, economic activity that could lead to innovation and adaption to lessen the harmful human impacts on the envrionment and achieve sustainable growth.

I also think he knows that or he wouldn’t have protested so much. Who is he trying to convince, the writer or himself?

I think Dr. Carafano has it right when he says that the environment or if I may say, the changes in the environment don’t cause wars, it’s the way people react to the changes that cause wars. Creating planet wide fear about climate change does more to cause wars over resources than to help in any situation, but it does further the causes being championed by those stirring the pot. Doesn’t it make more sense for countries who have limited resources to support the ones that do, and to make every effort to befriend the countries that can feed the world, rather than start conflicts with them? Maybe it’s just me, but that seems to be a perfect example of how a change in the way a government reacts to “climate change” can make a real difference. Of course if you’re greedy, ignorant and arrogant, I guess you might think it’s better to go to war with those who have what you want rather than enter into treaties that might be mutually beneficial.

The writer cites history as being filled with “examples of climate induced conflicts and humanitarian disasters”. I think that does more to support Carafano that to debunk him. Again, the planet is cyclic. There are examples of drastic climate changes throughout history. The thought that human beings are the cause of those changes and can therefore actually prevent or even slightly affect those changes is “silly”. But, it does serve as an excellent platform on which to stand to get people’s attention by scaring them into making changes that they would ordinarily pay no attention to. For example, we must stop eating meat, because the herds of cattle being raised for the purpose of human consumption are creating methane gas which in turn is causing global warming. If the planet could handle herds of buffalo large enough to cover entire states, belching and otherwise expelling gas, than how is my double cheeseburger destroying the planet?
Oh, maybe it’s because P.E.D.A. is the one spreading that news and, maybe because they have a “dog in that fight”….probably a bad expression to use in a P.E.D.A argument.
For the record, I am the first one standing in an argument for the ethical treatment of animals, but let’s get serious and keep our battles where they belong.

People have a choice in how they handle disasters. Dr. Carafano makes a sober, logical argument that it makes sense for nations to adapt to the inevitable change in climate that is coming over the next hundred years or so. If evolution has taught us nothing else, it is that those who do not adapt…go extinct.

I think George Carlin had it right nearly twenty years ago, when he said “The planet isn’t going anywhere….WE are!”