You write that list of my positions as though it was sequential. It isn't.

All of the things on it are still valid points on many counts, and they are all valid at the same time.

A correction to your first item: "anthropological" needs to be inserted before "warming,"

You can't discuss options, because you know where the advocates want to go with this. Same place they want to go with every crisis, real or imagined, and if this is admitted, the motives become too damn obvious.

There are billions of dollars flowing through the "global warming" industry. Far more money than is being spent by industries to argue with them. Does this mean nothing?

In the original article Al Gore is listed as a source, who has personally accumulated $200 million on climate change hysteria. Are his opinions objective?

The scientists who are not on oil company payrolls are on somebody else's payroll. Whose? It's not just the money, either. In the past I have documented multiple cases of scientists coming up with research that goes in the "wrong" direction, and what happens to them and their papers. Scientific American does not cite their papers, and never will.

That academic who was lighting a match to a book she didn't like is Alison Bridger. She's now a big wheel in the local climate change movement, with grants and career enhancements flowing freely. Her department was recently renamed (2010) from "Meteorology" to "Meteorology and Climate Change," and a new Climate Change major has been added. The goose is hanging high for a formerly tiny department.

Prior to this, Bridger spent 18 years in obscurity, known primarily for various papers she did on the atmosphere of Mars. You tell me which side her bread is buttered on, and specific reasons why she should be considered any more or less corruptible than a scientist who takes money from a foundation supported by energy companies.

"Motives of the sources" isn't a single-edged sword. You can't "follow the money" on just one side, and you insist on doing so.

The point of that chart was that the "solution" favored by the global warming advocates--subjecting the U.S. to massive state controls, huge new taxes and all the rest--apparently isn't going to actually do anything all that useful. China already has absolute state control of its industries, and they've decided global warming isn't an issue. Now what?

Or maybe statism in America was the only point all along, and once they get it, it'll be "screw the polar bears." Centrally-controlled governments have a long and miserable history of environmental abuse, and I don't see why an American version would be any better.