Recent posts about the politics of it prompt me to ponder the how and why it is such a divisive issue. If one thinks about it, as Tony says, it's global. So, if it's a problem, which case has been made "overwhelmingly" by "science", there is no solution but a global one. Therefore, we have the supposed solution. It must be a global governance to "tackle" the problem. Problem is humans don't really subscribe to a global government. As evidence of that I simply refer all to Stabu's post about politics. There are not coherent politics to achieve a one world government, or even a coalition of governments that will all subscribe to some treaty which limits a certain by-product of modern technological-industrial civilization on some and not others. Competition is still a force in markets. You have rising "second world" nations, some with ideologies opposed to freedom of individuals and markets (China for instance). What would the treaty be between such nations and the west? How would it be implemented? The U.N.? The U.N. is the home of the IPCC of course. I hear they are the authority on global warming. Humans are not inclined to give their personal liberty to authoritarian counsels, UNLESS there is an existential threat to their lives (or, more accurately the future lives of their grandchildren) of course. This all started back in the nineteen-seventies with various Malthusian scares involving the environment, and overpopulation, and of course what we are now debating. It was hip. It was radical. Remember the sixties? They changed America and the world in a lot of ways. Shouting in the street and waving your banner all over the place (to quote Queen "We Will Rock You"), hasn't quite died or been recouped by the so-called evil capitalist gangster establishment yet. Hell, the first time I heard "New World Order" it was from the lips of H.W. Bush, as evil and Republican a U.S. president as I can imagine. I see the parallel between his idea and the concept that global warming can only be tackled by "global" governance. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy but the parallel is obvious to me at least. So, Tony, is that in line with your solution to solve global warming? Just curious.