The ChamberPost: Going Green Alone: [How many American voters believe in the global warming hoax enough to fork over $1600 annually?]

What are you willing to pay to make a statement on global warming? Does $1,600 a year sound about right? That’s what the Congressional Budget Office says it would cost a typical household to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 15 percent.
...
...This cap-and-trade bill fails to meet these principles. It would impose draconian costs for meager results, in large part because we’d be going it alone. So the Chamber can’t support H.R. 2454 in its current form. Write to your members of Congress and urge them to oppose H.R. 2454, the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. Then let’s work toward a global solution to reducing greenhouse gases that actually produces real results. After all, we’re all in this together.

An Open Letter to Climate Change Denialists «  Daniel A. Farber - University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

From the point of view of the blog, it’s good news that you have found us — it means that we’re reaching readers who are well outside our usual circle of friends and acquaintances. And we also welcome dissenting views, even when we think they’re unfounded, so you folks are welcome to keep on posting comments.

I continue to think that you’re absolutely wrong — about as wrong about climate change as Chamberlain was about Hitler’s benign intentions when he announced “peace in our time.” If you want to see my reasons in some detail, you might look at this paper.

It’s obvious, however, that there’s no point in debating the science with you — if you’re not convinced by a virtually unanimous consensus from the world’s leading scientists, you’re not going to be convinced by a group of legal scholars.

Maser Media Blog » AP Global Warming Propaganda Continues to Spew

As you know, I believe “global warming” to be a fraud. I realize there are true believers. I presented some of the arguments as to why its a fraud below, but many others do a better job debunking it. What I am concerned about is slamming through cap and trade without a vigorous debate of its ramifications. The science of global warming is tenuous at best so why should the policy be so Draconian and immediate?