Be sure to let us know if you ever come with something resembling an argument, won’t you ?
You are the one asking the rhetorical questions, which by definition is one that doesn’t expect a response.
The smokescreen point is well known among people that debate the global energy issues. Shifting away from fossil fuels serves the purpose of two parties. Number one, the policy makers that pay attention to the science of AGW. Number two, those that understand that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and from which we have to develop alternative sources of energy. Some pundits propose that AGW acts as a smokescreen to divert attention from fossil fuel depletion, which they believe is a more dire (read: scary) consequence, as it will prevent our continued economic growth.
That is the argument, and the one that I thought you were referring to. Next time try not to ask a rhetorical question, as I figured you understood the smokescreen argument. Apparently not.