Even such noted climate scientists as James Hansen believe that technology and the economics of energy will go a long way toward determing the future climate trajectory. But I think that the time has come to accelerate things that might help slow down the increase in atmospheric CO2, like converting to biofuels (ethanol, biodiesel, etc.)
If we don't burn the crude oil in the supply stream there will be no profit motive in maintaining the infrastructure and it will be shut down to preserve economic stability; if allowed to atrophy it will be lost as a backup strategy and we will be in a new crisis of supply as our demand for alternative fuels outpaces our accessibility and there will be hundreds of stories written about the "Sludge Belt" where old oil fields are slowly turning to tar pits.
That presumes a lot.
I am a long way from accepting the passive role of "... just state conclusions that were all already accepted as self-evident by her audience."
There is nothing self evident about either anthropogenic CO2 or accepting the ability of man to affect the climate trajectory and its underlying causes, one way or the other...
I think this is reasonable. I also think technology will bail us out of this one if necessary. Speaking of biofuels, I think this is a great "conservative" cause. What better issue than something that would help domestify our energy needs, and also help the American farmer? Conservatives and most freepers are missing the boat, we can jump on this issue, cautiously and conservatively.
ALL carbon based fuels : C + O2 = CO2 regardless of starting form of carbon.
Even if all the corn grown in the U.S. were converted into ethanol, it would not even come close to solving our vehicle energy needs. As far as environmentalist predictions are concerned, they have been amazingly and consistently wrong. Mount Pinatubo alone should have wrecked our ecology according to them.