It was about global warming. Koltar expressed his usual wilful ignorance of the subject - "tell me about it, I don't believe it, give me proof," "Here are some links," "Okay I won't read those but will just keep saying I don't believe it" - and was duly roasted by the usual Tangency mixture of Middle-Classed Bleeding Hearts and People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About. The latter group is the minority of course, but it's there.
Do you want to know how to tell that Global Warming isn't really about Global Warming but is about anti-industrialization?
First, the focus from the usual suspects is always about cutting carbon dioxide emissions and never about ways to take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. And, yes, there are plausible ways we might be able to do that.
Second, the usual suspects aren't embracing alternate fuel technologies that create oil from, for example, organic farm waste, even though the carbon it uses won't contribute to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. I've seen at least one commentator say of such technology that "the bad news" about the technology is that it will let industrialization go on.
Third, the usual suspects demand compliance with agreements like Kyoto that will have huge economic impacts but almost zero impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide. And, of course, few countries are actually complying with Kyoto who have signed up for it.
Fourth, many of the usual suspects who make the most noise will be least impacted by the medicine that they prescribe for everyone else and don't seem to do a very good job of leading the sort of austere lifestyle they expect everyone else to live. Carbon credits? Give me a break. How about real unilateral reductions if they really believe what they are saying?