for the extremists to dismiss any serious discussion that dares not agree with their hyper-partisan solutions like the "green dream". No one serious denies that man has an impact on CO2 emissions as doing so would be absurd. The discussion should be around trying to strike a balance between the steps we take, how realistic and impactful those steps will be, and how they will impact the lives of people (in terms of energy costs, quality of life, etc.), particularly the poor and working class, not only here, but also around the world.

As for my suggestion of war, that was mostly to mock those that insist on portraying this as an "existential crisis", "our generation's WWII", "we only have 12 yrs left for drastic change", etc. This is the same technique as dismissing any serious discussion by calling those that don't just fully buy in as "science deniers". These are not people that have any interest in being honest in order to get to an honest discussion. It's their my way or the highway approach. Anything other than what they want is not acceptable. If we truly only have 12 yrs to act, and we know that no matter what we do, the increases in China, India, etc. will far exceed our reductions, wouldn't we be willing to take any steps necessary, even war, to prevent that certain destruction of the Earth? Yet those that keep telling us it's certain destruction, never seem to make serious moves toward curtailing the impacts being made by China, India, etc. Guess it's not quite the "existential crisis" they claim.