Well, I like using the tactics of my enemies against them as effectively as possible. Nothing cools off global warmingists faster than asking them to adapt the policies they suggest for others. Thats why I started my contributions to this thread by pointing out that NO ONE cycled to Copenhagen for the conference. On the other hand nothing gets globalwarmingists hotter (endless irony, there) than adapting their own techniques, and pointing out where they dropped 'evidence' when it no longer fit their pet agenda. A few years ago the Goricle-ers were all agog over rampaging hurricanes as evidence for Globalwarmingism. Now that we've had a few calm years in the Caribbean, this peice of evidence has been quietly dropped. The more time warmingists spend sniping and arguing with each other---Flopenhagen was a classic---the less time they have to spew their theories to clueless UN delegates.

You can tell the game is rigged when the goalposts keep moving. Globalwarmingists first suggested temperatures would rise so much all the ice would melt and the poor Statue of Liberty would be up to her neck in water. Now, the temperature rise is so small a few island monarchies in the Pacific might be up the creek without a paddle.

And yes...Lonborg has pointed out for years that the 'damage' done by global warming---the spread of malaria is one hobby horse global warmingists have ridden for years---could be eliminated at minimal cost. As an environmental economist, I can show you examples in the literature going back to the 1950s.

And how does this all relate to cycling? Anticar fossil fuel luddites have captured undue attention, thus destroying the goodwill cyclists have carefully gathered over the last few decades. Toadying to envirowhackos just makes it more difficult for reasonable cyclists to demonstrate how cycling is healthy, reduces congestion and pollutiion, and is enjoyable in its own right. Mazzholes who won't give an inch in the face of facts are hardly entitled to 3 feet at their 'beck' and call.

roughstuff