There is some truth to what you say, but you are neglecting the bigger picture. German (and Danish) engineers are being pressed into solving a difficult but not insurmountable problem: how do you build a robust grid from renewable energy sources. The critics said they wouldn't get past 3%. There will always be nay-sayers. Still your point stands: for the time-being Germany is depending, in part, on the French nuclear industry, and the Russian gas industry too.

The "most informed" are usually the most misled. Bertrand Russell's famous quote about ignorance and bluster is about you. It doesn't always have to be that way.

You wouldn't care less about the science if it had nothing to do with economic change. But because it does, the science must be wrong. And you know this because you read blogs!!! You are so SMART!!!

The German mixed-market economy is underwritten by sound economic analysis. They 3% during the great recession. When was the last time the USA had 3% growth? If you grow the pie, then the "forced charity" is free.

Most people in the USA want to run the economy according to the moral code: "what is mine is mine". That is great and all, but it just isn't serious economics.

Technology.

Read Trust me, I'm Lying -- it is a book by a self-confessed media manipulator who got depressed and left the industry. He worked for an apparel company. One example tactic was to take sexually explicit photos of porn stars, and then complain about said photos to feminist groups. And then: OUTRAGE!!!

The story of ACORN is a perfect example of how media manipulators manufactured a scandal -- literally creating reality for movement conservatives -- in order to shut the group down. To this day, some GOP congress critters are unaware that ACORN is defunct. The interesting thing is, the more outraged a person is (politically), the easier they are to manipulate. It is all rather ironic.

Image a world where Al Gore won the 2000 election. Maybe he would have done the same things that Bush did:

• Pull the plug on the hunt for Bin Ladin
• Ignore warnings of an imminent terrorist attack
• Invade Iraq until false pretenses
• Give huge tax cuts that apparently pay for themselves with economic growth
• Stack government science committees with fundies
• Use a pseudo-scientific definition of life to pull funding on stem cell research

I am sure that Gore would have made many annoying mistakes, but you are fooling yourself if you think both parties are the same.

People in politics are motivated as much by their personal beliefs as anything else. Judge them by what they do.

Some people put forward the moral argument that you shouldn't spend other's hard earned money. Others put forward the moral argument that we should help the poor. Still others use considered analysis and modeling to try and understand the network of incentives in order to predict the outcome of policy initiatives. There are no a priori correct answers here. Do you know what this last group thinks of your assertion?

Some reach for the moral argument you just put forward. Others think the moral, neigh Christian, thing to do is to help the poor. Still others believe in studying society, and figuring out how to reduce overall costs, including hidden costs such as crime. This is hard work, takes time, and no answers are a priori correct. Do you know what this last category thinks about the so-called "Obamaphone"?

It is a fallacy that addressing AGW means limiting the poor's access to energy. There will be change no matter what, and change begets winners and losers, and the losers are the current crop of plutocrats who run the GOP rage machine, and this nonsense about addressing climate change making us collectively poorer is just one of many pratts.

This is because mainstream liberals adopted conservative policies like the ACA (aka Obamacare), and cap-and-trade. Following the Gingrich doctrine "24/7 campaign, always attack, never admit fault", they dug themselves into this hole. The USA has a center-right party and nationalist-conspiratorial-party.

Haha, maybe, and maybe the GP is spot on the mark. Just 'cause someone has deeply held political views doesn't mean they cannot be dead wrong. Can you imagine the shame of people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh if God almighty touched them with the veridicality of AGW? It would be crushing. I don't think there is any point coddling the preachers of hate and their "rebel" flock.

Depending on the media you consume you may not know this. About 50% of conservatives willing accept AGW if presented with free-market solutions. About 90% of liberals don't care if the solution is free-market or government -- they just want a solution.

You may find this short video interesting.

There is such a thing as a manufactured scandal. American politics is replete with them -- esp. conservative politics, which panders to a rather conspiratorial base.

There is also a long well documented history of plutocrats using libertarian talking points to push their cronyism. It's an imperfect world.

As of 2015, the total levelized cost of coal is in the ballpark of solar/wind. (Levelized cost includes capital costs, but does not include pollution costs -- consider how cheap coal is that we count the cost of medical bills, let alone AGW.) In a few decades, it will be cheaper to use renewables than mine coal to run an existing coal plant. Notice how fast Kodak went out of business? That is what the coal industry is staring down.