Just for a moment, if any of the pen-pocket-protector-types can, forget about the science and look at the actual behavior of those at the forefront of this debate:

So we got Obama, exhibit #1 among the Climate Change AGW crowd -former leader of global super power, smartest-best-person-ever-to-have-existed according to some folk's mythologies. And what's he up to these days?

Last check, he and the wife were signing $65MM book deals, jet-setting around the world on private jets and yachts to hang with the regular types at ultra exclusive luxury resorts based mainly in tropical island paradises. (Guessing the carbon for that kind of stuff might lead to a so-called hotfoot)

Oh, and he's also charging $400K for 45 minute speeches on 'pertinent' topics (do ya think climate issues might be addressed in any of such speeches, ever?)

So, putting aside his burning a hole in the universe with all the carbon necessary to globe trot and be accommodated 'in style', what about all that money? What's he need it for, anyway?

Is he going to give it away to fund the solution that the Climate Change AGW crowd claims is required to save our planet? And, if he did, would however many millions he contributed even amount to a drop in the bucket against such an overwhelming problem? I mean, we're basically doomed to destruction via climate change in about 25 years -according to some of the (ever-changing) estimates thrown about, right?

And speaking of eminent doom, let's be generous and say he creates a foundation to save the planet and gives away a majority of his wealth. Do ya think that maybe, just maybe, just maybe, Obama is going to set up a little, itty-bitty bit of that dough for his posterity (Michelle, Malia, Shasha)? And how much you figure that might be? 5,10,20 million? More?

So here's the behavior question for all you geniuses pulling on your slide rulers (if you even know what those are or how to use one...): why would Obama burn up the atmosphere combusting jet fuel, or create a Sisyphean charity model that logically could't make a dent in such an 'enormous' global problem, or -and this is really the point- create an economic and generational safety net for his posterity, if he truly believed the whole world is going to hell post haste and within the lifetime of current generations -including his daughters????

Feel free to bring on "hope" and "synergy" but be sure you 'splain why any of those rationalizations accrue benefits specifically and exclusively to his line, if the problem threatens survival of the entire human species.

Do his actions indicate that he is really a true believer? And if he's not -former leader of the free world, had/has access to more data than imaginable, smartest-best-guy-who-can-also-shoot-hoops-etc-etc-ad nauseam-, why should anyone be?