My comments were a divergence from the exact discussion, but also a combination of many aspects. You had written previously that Romney is not an ideologue, and will work in a manner that will disappoint AGW skeptics. I alluded to his plans to greatly escalate recovery of our own resources, and that will not disappoint skeptics, but instead will cheer them. And it presents a slight challenge to your predictions of Romney's AGW actions were he to be elected.
If he does both increased exploration and utilization of our energy resources while placating the AGW groups, and it pans out well for energy security and the economy that would be a brilliant political move. But that is pie in the sky, and I doubt he can achieve anything close to that outcome, with placation of the environmentalists being the least likely. Many environmentalists seem implacable and unreasonable to me. There are some quite reasonable and very well informed, but they don't get as much exposure.
My additional comments weave in the national debt because it is a matter of fact, and unlike AGW where a person my be hotter one day and colder the next, the national debt is ticking upward inexorably for all observers at all times. It will take a strong and wealthy nation whose currency is not threatened with collapse to adjust to AGW gracefully, so I would expect AGW advocates to be extremely sensitive to loss of the means to even attempt a fight of AGW. But to the contrary, on the national stage, it seems many attempt to use the fight of AGW to weaken the nation even more, though I continue to try to convince myself that is not their goal by telling myself they are "dumb" (a sort of forbearance I offer them against the prospect of far harsher judgements.) Maybe they think their job is to fight AGW, and handling all other issues is the problem of someone else. Well they are against me in that regard because I consider the national debt my primary concern, and I will have to oppose a great many of their actions.
