I find that to be a strange statement anyway, to be “for” or “against” AGW. Either the facts say one thing or they say another, but how can one be “for” or “against” a scientific outcome? I mean, how can any rational person do so. That leaves the DUmmies out. They are at their most hypocritical when pronouncing their belief in the religion of AGW, after deriding Christian belief and its Book as “fairytales”.
I understand where you’re coming from. How can one be ‘for’ an increase in C02 emissions causing massive destruction? But I doubt that’s what’s meant. Remember, these are DUmmies. Their knowledge, and use of the English language, are limited and often overcome by misuse.
I take it to mean they support the notion than mankind abuses his environment, and they are ‘for’ global control. Naturally, the statement is vague and can easily be taken differently. But they themselves live a vague, meaningless existence, so that’s not so unusual for them.