Who needs fire anyway?

Then it shouldn't be a big deal to invest that much in alternative energy and conservation?

The real shame is that while they've been preaching, real issues are being ignored. Mountain top mining goes on. Coal ash fallout continues. The irony is that if they addressed these real and obvious concerns about which few disagree, then carbon emissions would be reduced as a side effect.

Yeah, nobody in the climate change community talks about mining http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2009/2009-06-23-01.asp

From extreme drought, heat waves and floods to unprecedented tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, wildfires and winter storms, a record 14 weather and climate disasters in 2011 each caused $1 billion or more in damages — and most regrettably, loss of human lives and property

http://www.noaa.gov/extreme2011/

You are quite mistaken on cause and effect.

Actually, the theory of greenhouse gases was understood over 100 years ago, and scientists like Arrhenius made some early predictions that increased CO2 could increase the climate. This was long before we were able to measure a significant increase in global temperature.

If you have an explanation for why increased CO2 would not have a greenhouse effect, please submit your results to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.php

Get a clue!

an increasingly dense atmosphere of turtles, to be precise.

If the government were not in a position to grant special favors to companies because it is regulating everything in sight, then business would have no use buying off politicians.

cuts two ways: businesses would not need to buy off politicians because they would control us directly.