Another illogical conspiracy theory to justify a thesis that AGW theory is wrong. How far can you stretch reality to justify your position? Your theory just doesn't make sense - do you really think it is easier for governments to persuade people of AGW than it is to simply say "energy is running out - we must take steps to use less"? People don't want to accept AGW theory simply because the answer to it is to use much less energy, and they don't think there is any problem with its supply. But if much more effort was made to demonstrate the reality of energy availability being in decline (this is clearly the case in terms of per capita energy availability), it would be much much easier to get people to conserve what's left than tenuously through the theory of AGW.

And to sendoilplease - take your head out of the sand and look a few years beyond next year. Constructive action on either front leads to the same end result, and just describing something as bone-headed doesn't make it so - it just makes you look like an ill-educated (or ill-researched) fool.