Oooooh a catchphrase. I'm convinced I was wrong now because of this!
People aren't stupid because they don't believe what is being attempted to be sold to them. Fact is NO ONE can clearly demonstrate that this is in fact the case. IE: Mankind is responsible for AGW and furthermore NO ONE can demonstrate that AGW is even the case at hand.
I UNDERSTAND that overconsumption is a burden and that pollution is the bad thing for us. But that is not what is being sold. There is an agenda at hand with AGW and that is the Green taxation schemes and cap&trade schemes. THere is no actual plan to reduce oil consumption, to compact cars more, to create new energy efficiencies and incentives to lifestyle change are not being offered. Just taxes waiting to be shoved down your throat because it's your fault.
Dude, it's crap. I'm not an unreasonable person and I am certainly not unable to read or unable to understand even some level of complex technical data. There are millions like me and many more that are even more capable of data interpretation and observation that simply do not agree with what is being sold.
Many see this as a natural progression of events but at the same time see a need for pollution reduction. If all you can read into that is that I am completely against the idea without any wiggle room around what may be the actual problems at hand, then I would have to say perhaps this argument is headed down the trail to nowhere.
I'm guessing you don't actually have an argument about it? Some data to offer that you can articulately explain? Or are you gonna do an Al gore thing and just show slide after slide of wasteful pollution and natural disasters followed by commentaries about how this is advanced/accelerated global warming and it's all you poor peoples fault!
meanwhile, the G20 is still jetting around to meetings, wrecking cities and they could have teleconferenced the whole thing with a HUGE MASSIVE reduction in their "carbon footprint"
I believe that Icelandic volcano spewed out about 50x more C02 than what man has produced in 100 years so.... where does that leave AGW proponents?
hmmmn