To answer your first question: certainly not, especially if they concern the fate of the planet. And no, in my opinion, that is not the preferred outcome. To arrive at my opinion, you would first have to convince yourself that tiny is the correct size for a government (in contrast to a big government of today). I’m going to leave the convincing up to you, but for those same reasons, government should not have a hand in global warming prevention.

So you don’t think government should take action on scientifically derived conclusions, even if they concern the fate of the planet? Private enterprise will exploit the environment for all its worth if left to its own devices. Is that the preferred outcome in your opinion.

I’m stemming from the philosophy of a very small government, so by default I would think probably not – the government should stay out of climate change. The government should be focused on other issues and protecting our environment should be left up to the people. I’m thinking for the same reason a lot of the green technology should not be supported by the government – seems like a poor track record: gov’t starts picking winners and losers, takes your money, gives it to someone else, largely with out your knowledge – seems like a recipe for people doling out favors for their friends using your money.

So, no action by governments on climate change?

I took note of Romney’s stance on net neutrality. Wonder if I would have stumbled upon “the skeptical movement” if this site had been buried under sites that ISPs found more profitable?

I also saw:
“A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. ” my translation: Romney doesn’t think NASA needs more money, and, in spite of repeatedly decrying government involvement in various enterprise, Romney sounds like he wants to be the one to decide what NASA missions should be?

REgarding economy: Romney touts cutting government regulation and oversight. Historically, regulation spurs innovation and economic growth, while also improving safety. This is observable in almost any industry you care to examine. It also lends to quality of life for anybody who works for a living.

And I noted Romney’s education policy, which is in keeping with his anti-labor agenda: further cuts for teachers, and hopes for further union-busting. Not in keeping with world-class national educational systems that treat evolution as scientific fact.
I think skeptics have to ask themselves: do we really want a well-educated population? If we’re always griping about “critical thinking” then I think this might be an important question. I know there’s a big debate here about what contributes to a good education system – but supporting that local communities make the decision on what and how they’re going to teach, would be a step backwards – encouraging the kind of environment where creationism can become valid curriculum.

climate change:
from Mitt Romney book “No Apologies”: “…climate change has been going on from the beginning of the world; it is certainly not a new phenomenon. Even the apparent unity among scientists is not a sure indicator of scientific fact.”
http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/cap-and-trade-global-warming/

and what I’m almost sure will convince any as-yet-unconvinced skeptic to vote for Obama:
http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2011/06/mitt-and-global-warming/

I will pay more attention to that, however. Also – I will give you the same suggestion I give everyone who complains that we don’t cover enough X news – send me news items. Send me relevant skeptical Canadian news and I assure you more of them will find their way onto the SGU.