move away from the individual in favor of the collective, following the classical communist philosophy. So you may be right, Peter, when you say (and I'm paraphrasing here) that those who value individual freedom more highly than the collective need (as defined by a few powerful leaders) will tend to reject the premise that AGW is a serious threat that requires a collective solution including a restriction on the individual right to enjoy a prosperous standard of living associated with the emission of carbon dioxide. Those who feel that it is inherently unjust that some should enjoy a higher standard of living than others (a basic socialist or communist credo) will more readily embrace the concept of collective solutions that will end up equalizing the standards of living of richer and poorer societies by punishing the wealthier ones. Until AGW became a multi-billion dollar business in itself, with the promise of becoming even much larger with hundreds of billions in carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes at stake, this was largely an ideological disagreement. It has now become all about money, with all sorts of individuals, scientists, corporations, politicians, the media, etc. "lining up" at the money trough. Many of these have no ideological axe to grind one-way or the other; they are "in it for the bucks (or the power) alone". The ideologues are primarily being used as the willing foot soldiers to sell the cause. This has nothing to do with science, of course. Both sides will