California Assemblyman Roger Niello: Global Warming Debate Should At Least Be Honest

When it comes to the issue of global warming, I am, admittedly a skeptic. As I've written in the past, I struggle with the notion that global warming is entirely man-made, or even if it is, that there's going to be anything we can do to change its effects. But these days, it seems that any skeptic is viewed as simply irrelevant. After all, as many have said, the debate on global warming, “is over.” But should it be?

Global warming activists believe that severe cuts in emissions will move us towards saving the world from hotter temperatures, drought, and rising ocean levels. They believe that governments all over the world must enact carbon taxes and stringent business regulations to prevent these calamities. They talk highly of the “example” that California is setting for the world in enacting sweeping legislation, AB 32, that will require that we cut our carbon emission levels to those of 1990 by the year 2020.

For purposes of this article, whether or not these things all turn out to be true is beside the point. My frustration lies in the fact that an open and honest discussion of the consequences of these changes is quickly dismissed.

Cause and Effect? - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online

I admit it. I want to know if this has anything to do with this:

Greenpeace Steals My Trash