Global Climate proponents have long had an excellent line of argument to convince us all of their cause. It's the Auto Mechanic close method to sales.
Whenever I go in to an auto shop I've come to expect that it doesn't matter what I originally go into that shop for I will no doubt be told something else needs to be replaced. A mechanic will describe to me how if I didn't replace part X what "could" happen, what "potential" safety problems might occur, and how part X is "ready to go".
Your immediate reaction is "Holy Moly!" Better get that part switched or else simultaneously my wheels, front bumper, the windshield and steering wheel will come popping off the car magically without any prior warning.
The only problem is I don't what "could" happen. I don't care what "potential" safety problems could occur. And I don't care if something is "ready to go."
What I care about is how much more life does the part have? How likely are those safety problems are to occur? And, how likely is this problem going to happen without any prior warning? Once I start asking those questions, including the question "If this was your car, would you replace that part" all of sudden the picture becomes a lot more clearer of the shenanigans really going on.
In the climate change debate the same sales trick is being employed. Reports speak of how global water levels "could" raise by X amount by the end of the century. They speak of the "potential" costs to humanity. They elaborate about how endangered species of animals are "close" to extinction.
And the public reacts no differently. The "Holy Moly" instinct kicks in and we all stop thinking rationally. All of sudden any draconian measure of no matter the cost becomes justifiable.
In the aftermath of Copenhagen I think those of us who see some value behind individual freedom would be best to ask the following questions of Climate Change proponents like Al Gore and the like:
1) Are you so confident of the "potential" downfalls you are willing to be poor and have the government take 90% of your income to cure the problem?2) Just how likely is it that the outcomes we've heard of global warming will actually become true?3) How much time do we have left as the best case scenario? I've heard the doomsday scenario's all over the place, but given the best case, given all variables are the most advantageous towards humanity - what is the result?
We keep on asking those questions, and the climate change debate will easily fall apart. As Al Gore flies around the world leaving a carbon footprint the size of the Alberta I think we can see how much Al Gore would be willing to part with his money.