"World ends tomorrow - women and children hardest hit"

The mind of a democrat reading the report:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah raise taxes blah blah blah blah blah.

Which brings us to the only equitable means to address this (non) problem:  Excess Energy Consumption Tax.  Those who do the most consuming should do the most to solve "their" problem "they" created by living unsustainable lifestyles.  I will propose again that those who consume more than twice the average American household per property should pay a hefty energy tax to encourage them to reduce consumption or install alternative energy production to offset their consumption.  The proceeds of this tax should go directly and exclusively to setting up alternative energy research or install solar panels and wind turbines at government sites where land is available to power government activities such as national parks and military installations.

Dr. Al Gore should be paying 20 times for his electrical consumption because he uses 20 times the average.  This is a potent inducement to conserve or get off the electric grid.  If the problem is as bad as everyone has been led to believe, then drastic action must be forced on those who drastically use energy in a wasteful manner, this called proportionality (equitable distribution of responsibility).

There are 15 million Americans consuming at the same rate as Dr. Al Gore, they need to cut back, it's their responsibility not to shove off the consequences of their actions upon others, namely the majority (285 million).  They have the means, they are therefore responsible to address their problem.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

So, this scheme would increase unemployment, hurt the poor, result in higher taxes, drive up inflation, and increase budget deficits.

So the dems do have a plan!

"...Al Gore and his sycophant devotees recommend solutions to a conceivably nonexistent problem..."

I say absolutely "nonexistent problem".  The scientists in the following say what many of us have been saying for a long time.

"Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

Stephanie Stein 

Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 10:00

Local News - The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," ... say two Ottawa scientists.

Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.

Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.

"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Patterson explained CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential plant food.... "