The vital question in this "take-it-for-granted-man-made-global-warming" is whether "Man is to blame for it all"... Physicists, geo-physicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, chemists, biochemists, and biologists are far from any consensus, although it looks like, under "academic democracy", most would answer yes. Democracy is sometimes/always a poisoned Agora in terms of both finding (genuinely) moral and (genuinely) scientific answers for the questions of our world For instance we are living in a world where... A POLITICIAN, Al Gore, is considered one of the "most influential thinkers and... scientists" today, according to the TIME Magazine. The popular title was not awarded, as in the pre-Wikipedia days of Aristotle, Descartes, Galileo or Newton, on neither a major discovery nor ground-shaking treatise, but on a small ideological documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth"!!! The movie methodically gathers only the arguments of the "publicly subsidized" global academia, the ones who would need a radical career change if the inexistence of "man-made global warming" is eventually proved (if allowed to gossip). Promoted as the 5th modern gospel, the central predictable thesis is that "moderation is needed". And who else can have enough of it but the world's governments summoned at Kyoto for the "who's, what's, how's" of pollution and, finally, production!?
 
The stake in this debate is, beyond all quarrels in natural sciences: are we or not going to keep up with flirting with poor economics? For all the remedies are human actions that (depending on who and how is managing them) could enrich our future lives (in a man-ruled environment) or, on the contrary, let us starve with eco-dignity (within a environment-ruled human society). This article is about the perrils of "making economic non-sense"...