I for one don't deny that the globe may be warming (or at least that the climate may be changing), nor even that man may have exacerbated this trend. And I am willing to do my part to help minimize my impact: I telecommute when I can, I minimize my driving (e.g. walk to lunch when I'm at the office), we have a garden, we compost, I drive a hybrid car with excellent gas mileage.

I'm not against "doing something" and certainly agree that pollution is bad. I'm just not willing to agree that most proposals (e.g., so-called cap-and-trade legislation) are going to do anything about pollution, and on the off chance that some proposal does have a minor impact on pollution and/or warming, will it do so without crippling our economy?

So while I'm willing to "do something", I'm not willing to put my faith in a demonstrably ineffective Government, nor am I willing to live in a cave, naked and eating dirt (but my carbon footprint would be pretty low if I did), nor am I willing to cripple our economy.

Even if today's warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation and almost certainly to our own detriment as a species. If nothing else, if we could run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative.

My biggest issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on climate science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.

For example, let's look at the IPCC report on climate change...Let's see...it doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things...It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.

But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it.

The report also said climate change had the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," [the report] said.

But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."

It's not about climate change or environmentalism, and it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.