One of the glaring weaknesses of climate change hysterics is their lack of comprehension of climate change. This isn't only true for the uninformed majority, it is also true for advocacy groups and many scientists. Their arguments are unpersuasive even when one is sympathetic to the thesis.

Climate Science has reported that the narrow focus on carbon emissions as the dominate threat to society and the environment has unleashed unanticipated consequences (e.g., see Has The IPCC Produced A Hydra?). A recent (February 8, 2008) New York Time article by Elisabeth Rosenthal Biofuels Deemed A Greenhouse Threat provide yet another example of the inappropriate and inaccurate focus on just one human influence on the climate system.

An excerpt from the article summarizes the issue,

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account, two studies being published Thursday have concluded.

“This land use problem is not just a secondary effect — it was often just a footnote in prior papers,”. “It is major. The comparison with fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on cropland.”

. . .

It is time for the policy community to be more through in their study of the role of inadvertent human forcings and of deliberate mitigation policies on the climate system, and more generally on the environment.

By failing to consider the whole system - focusing only on GHGs, but omitting accounting for some major sources of GHGs - climate change advocates reveal their lack of seriousness about climate. They merely use concerns about climate change to advance an agenda that is otherwise rejected by society. They seek to frighten society into accepting unpalatable political systems. Better red than dead, or so they claim.

The net result of these efforts is to make both emissions and climate change worse. Those who desire improved socio-economic systems and those who are truly concerned about the environment in general and climate change in particular would do well to be far more critical of climate change activists.