There's a good one. Here was the answer I liked, which was also top voted:
So in the comments, someone challenged him to come up with his own recommended solution and he had some good things to say:Anderson Moorer, Political independent, leans towards libertarian
Votes by Chris Bast, Michael Lee, Charlie Fortin, David Rowe, and 15 more.
Good science is meant to be met with skepticism, so it's hardly reasonable to make incredible claims and then not expect or even welcome debate.
Nor is it reasonable to insist that the conclusions drawn not be debated, particularly when they jump from "temperatures have risen" to things as sweeping as "we must now enact a myriad of broad policies on a massive scale."
Much of the controversy today comes from a false equivalence being made between the science and political policy, which allows a game where any disagreement with political conclusions is directed into a debate on the science. Who are YOU to question these learned and able scientists? Now, shut up and let us enact a carbon tax. You BELIEVE, don't you? Then tithe, or be excommunicated.
Accepting obviously correct data does not mean one must or should accept conclusions which go far beyond what is indicated by that data.
It is possible to believe that human emissions have an impact on the environment without believing polar bears are soon going to drown as pack ice recedes, or that New Yorkers are soon going to have go to work in rowboats, or that we will all be swallowed up by planetary superstorms, or that we must all subsidize alternative energy investment etc NOW RIGHT NOW OR WE ARE DOOMED.
Somehow the premise always seems, in the end, to point to policy changes which can make certain people a lot of money. And that we must act now, and that to question is unacceptable.
Is there science which should be considered? Yes. Is there overwhelming effort to use that science to advocate sweeping conclusions for the purpose of pushing special interest legislation and investments? You bet.
Plenty of people may not follow the science yet are quite capable of spotting cons and pressure sales tactics.
To further complicate matters, at present the science and the political agendas have become intertwined and are feeding on each other. This is not good science nor good public policy.
In this light, it becomes easy for one side to deny the very existence of a problem, and the other to ridiculously inflate that problem and make wild claims.
Emphasis mine. Of course this comes at the PERFECT time. This is a perfect example of what we see in the media today:As you say, reasonable policies can be enacted without hysteria or catastrophism, massive expansion of governmental agencies, or campaigns urging individuals to personally "combat global warning" and the like.
Since you ask, I favor a reasoned degree of governmental support for industry emissions regulation as well as establishing international targets for reduction of greenhouse gasses but consider this a 100+ year project in which more modest, incremental change is acceptable.
I am fine with a degree of federal support for research and pilot programs exploring emerging energy technologies, recycling technologies etc.
I also believe that climate emissions can be reduced by expanding domestic nuclear power generation, and that this is worth federal assistance and encouragement.
I believe the US should relax its self-imposed opposition to fossil fuels and greatly expand its domestic production and export of fossil fuels, encourage pipeline transport, fracking, offshore drilling, and examine potential for widespread, low-impact drilling on federal land.
I reject the climate of hysteria, pressure tactics, and contempt-towards debate which has been built up around climate change, and the idea that global crisis requires all "green" policy be fast tracked with debate unacceptable.
I reject the denial that there is such a phenomenon as "global warming" but also reject the mindset that it is an immediate planetary crisis which should become the central focus of all government, at all levels.
Of course, this is all my personal opinion, given on request. I don't claim to have a lock on the cure for all societal ills. But I call bullshit on both climate-based hysteria and the castigation and stereotyping of any skeptical voices seeking debate. The debate is NOT over, and needs to shift from hyperbole and public rhetoric on both sides to compromise-driven, bipartisan negotiation which arrives at reasonable and balanced public policy.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/31/55657 ... e-un-warns
This is EXACTLY what Anderson was talking about:
Here are some more headlines that I found:"Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy," US Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement following the report's release. "Denial of the science is malpractice," he added.
Secretary Kerry warns climate change is a 'weapon of mass destruction'
Google Street View captures Canada's polar bears in conservation effort
Richard Branson sides with Apple CEO against climate change deniers
If I seem angry about this, this is why.