You have a problem with Senator Inhofe denying a problem exists... well, I have a problem with with those who insist the "solution" to said problem doesn't require simultaneous participation by all who are affected (by definition, the whole planet). Apparently, all that is required is the effective destruction of ONE country's economy, while the arguably "biggest offenders' do nothing...
There are many who examine a particular effect and discern what THEY consider to be the primary cause (which, of course, requires immediate and economically disastrous action) And, there are clearly just as many playing fast and loose with FACTS on the AGW-proponent side as there may be on the 'denier' side.
I won't argue that the climate changes... It always has, it always will... I submit we simply do not know enough with adequate certainty about WHY this change happens, and what if ANYTHING to do about it...
However, I *do* challenge the conclusion that (a) the actions of MANKIND are directly and primarily responsible, (b) we can do anything about it, and (c) that *ANY* of the proposed "solutions" has been demonstrably proven to ADDRESS THE PROBLEM.
I maintain that Cap-and-Trade has absolutely *nothing* to do with addressing ANY aspect of Climate Change. It is first -and-foremost a mechanism to re-distribute wealth on a global basis for the ultimate profit of a select few. Cap-and-Trade is a political tool - NOT a scientific one - to be expressly wielded by those who desire power over the lives and economic productivity of others. It relies upon an emotional need to "do something" by appealing to the less intelligent while placing an unaccepatble burden on the backs of those most capable of *Really* addressing the issue.
I'm unsure how to take your analogy on "growing corn instead of poppies". You seem to be implying that those who recognize what may be a problem have a duty and responsibility to provide "alternatives" to those who are CAUSING said problem in order to gain their participation. If we're going to insist of having a moral high ground, isn't there a concept of shared responsibility when "everyone" is in danger?
Does it make sense to "find a technological solution" that doesn't have the active support of everyone involved, especially when the COSTS associated with the solution are potentially so great? By what right does one insist that *some* "pay the price" for "saving the planet" while others reap the same benefits?
And - it goes without saying - that if you're going to provide a technological solution, and BEFORE you demand its immediate and world-wide implementation - you better be able to PROVE (1) it works as intended, (2) it has limited or no 'booby-traps', e.g., unintended consequences, (3) it has an reasonable price tag to be borne by those who pay the price, and (4) that those who pay for it will be somehwat guaranteed of reaping the greatest benefit.
BTW, can you find someone who will define precisely which global temperature is IDEAL, and then justify it? After all, if we're going to worry about warming (or cooling, or just 'change') shouldn't we have have a clearly defined GOAL for where things need to be?
For a solution to be found, you must first - completely and fully - define the parameters of precisely WHAT constitutes the nature of the PROBLEM. And that, quite simply, hasn't been done.