Well, that’s obviously the purpose of warmism. If you control emissions you control industrial production, and if you control industrial production there’s really nothing in modern society you don’t control. Warmism is not a particularly well disguised attempt at implementing socialism for the earth. That’s why climate change has to be manmade, if we decide it’s natural it wouldn’t work. And that’s why it has to be mitigated, if we decide that it’s better to deal with the consequences, or that it’s too late to do anything about it, it wouldn’t work either. If warming was natural it would be a problem that the market can fix, if we wanted to deal with the consequences that would be a problem that the market can fix, but mitigation requires state intervention. Warmism was designed to be a problem that the free market can’t fix, a problem that requires state-socialism. But it’s really remarkably unlikely that such a problem could exist. Just think about the likelihood of manmade emissions having an effect on the atmosphere, but not such a great effect that the damage was done and it’s too late for mitigation to work. It’s insanely unlikely, like hitting bulls eye on a dartboard from the other end of a football field. And it’s not true, the science is made up to lead to the conclusion that emissions have to be controlled. That’s why the science is fake and artificial, it has to lead to a predefined conclusion. Actual science isn’t that predictable. But controlling emissions is obviously unworkable. We don’t even know how much of a reduction would sufficiently mitigate climate change. Nobody has a clue how the atmosphere works, they aren’t even sure whether more CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming or cooling. And they definitely don’t know what rate of emission reduction would have what effect. Anyone who says they know how to micromanage the atmosphere is obviously lying. The libertarian solution to climate change is realizing that it is a political fraud.