She didn’t accept the premise; she bypassed it.
The point she made here is that regardless of what you think about “climate change,” cap and tax is not the answer; taking advantage of our domestic resources is the solution.
She could have spent time trying to convince people that her understanding of the problem is correct, and then secondarily trying to convince them that her solution is right. But that’s a complex, multi-step argument.
Instead, she cut out the first step, and went directly to her proposed solution. If she convinces people that her proposed solution is correct, does it really matter people’s understanding of the problem differ from hers?
AMEN, Brother FReeper! Well said! And it was probably the thing I admired most about her Op-Ed!