Not a very strong case. All the arguments assumed that CO2 was a pollutant that caused global warming. There was no skepticism displayed in the article.
The article repeated the assumption regarding our “dangerous” dependence on ME oil. Is the author even aware that we get most of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico? And that the ME has plenty more countries lined up to buy “our” share if we were to boycott them?
And I am beginning to despise “consensus” suggestions; as Michael Crichton said (something to the effect of), science doesn’t need consensus, politics needs consensus. In science, you are either right or wrong. On this point, the climate change alarmists are WRONG.
I don’t disagree about planning for future natural disasters or fuel shortage issues, however, just not within the context of this farce of climate change.