yeah, I don't get it either... let the states handle this stuff.

Global warming and human's contribution to climate change is beyond dispute.

It should be the concern of every citizen and every government.

We do not get a second chance with the environment. This bold faced lie that protecting the environment will cause job loss and economic damage must be ignored.

As Al Gore said in his movie, "Inconvenient Truth," the choice between bars of gold and the whole world should be obvious to any sane person.

Wade

Global warming and human's contribution to climate change is beyond dispute.

It should be the concern of every citizen and every government.

We do not get a second chance with the environment. This bold faced lie that protecting the environment will cause job loss and economic damage must be ignored.

As Al Gore said in his movie, "Inconvenient Truth," the choice between bars of gold and the whole world should be obvious to any sane person.

Wade

"beyond dispute"??????????

not even. just cuz you ignore scientists who don't agree with the enviro-nuts doesn't mean "global warming and human's contribution to climate change is beyond dispute."

Wade, for Republicans the choice is very clear - bars of gold.

And to all the naysayers, W just came out and recognized the problems of global warming. He did dance around the "issue" of whether man was at fault but it is fascinating to see that his proposed solution is to reduce domestic CO2 emissions and move to 'nucular' power, etc. If it's not man made, how can this help?

More smoke, more mirrors. WAKE UP FOLKS!

Global warming and human's contribution to climate change is beyond dispute.

I'm reminded of a wonderful quote:

MICHAEL CRICHTON ON "CONSENSUS SCIENCE"

Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January, 2003.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. (emphasis - mine)

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

We do not get a second chance with the environment.

It was in the news just the other day that the last time the earth was this warm was between 400 and 3,000 years ago, back when, as Warriornation so aptly put it, there was a whole lot of horse farting goin' on. This planet has had so many second chances, you couldn't begin to count them, and your statement shines the light of day on your colossal ignorance for all to see.

This bold faced lie that protecting the environment will cause job loss and economic damage must be ignored.

Can you explain how this is a lie? The United States Senate was so convinced that it voted 95 - 0 to reject the Kyoto Protocol based on what it would do to our economy without holding developing nations similarly accountable. Your statement is not supported even by people like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

As Al Gore said in his movie

LOL, you mean this Al Gore

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year.

Collect your booby prize on the way out, Wade. You've been voted off the island.

Spook, You blow off Al Gore yet quote Michael Crichton, a medical doctor? Strange.

Speaking of time wasting, the Senate has scheduled four days to debate flag burning? Guess that's more important than Medicare reform, the sorry state of education, immigration, WAR, trade imbalances, drugs (legal and illegal).

Cowtowing to the base?

I get Lobal Warming every time I drink a shot of good whiskey.

Ash, a medical dr has to pass a lot more stringent science classes than al gore ever came close to. I would trust Crichton over Gore any day of the week.

WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

But than again, spook has Mikie Crichton.

Barney, what part of the Michael Chrichton quote do you disagree with? Doesn't it bother you that the "scientific community" has been in since long before there were serious computer models, much less any actual proof. From the linked article:

The present hysteria formally began in the summer of 1988, although preparations had been put in place at least three years earlier. That was an especially warm summer in some regions, particularly in the United States. The abrupt increase in temperature in the late 1970s was too abrupt to be associated with the smooth increase in carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in testimony before Sen. Al Gore's Committee on Science, Technology and Space, said, in effect, that he was 99 percent certain that temperature had increased and that there was some greenhouse warming. He made no statement concerning the relation between the two.

Despite the fact that those remarks were virtually meaningless, they led the environmental advocacy movement to adopt the issue immediately. The growth of environmental advocacy since the 1970s has been phenomenal. In Europe the movement centered on the formation of Green parties; in the United States the movement centered on the development of large public interest advocacy groups. Those lobbying groups have budgets of several hundred million dollars and employ about 50,000 people; their support is highly valued by many political figures. As with any large groups, self-perpetuation becomes a crucial concern. "Global warming'' has become one of the major battle cries in their fundraising efforts. At the same time, the media unquestioningly accept the pronouncements of those groups as objective truth.

Within the large-scale climate modelling community--a small subset of the community interested in climate--however, the immediate response was to criticize Hansen for publicly promoting highly uncertain model results as relevant to public policy. Hansen's motivation was not totally obvious, but despite the criticism of Hansen, the modelling community quickly agreed that large warming was not impossible. That was still enough for both the politicians and advocates who have generally held that any hint of environmental danger is a sufficient basis for regulation unless the hint can be rigorously disproved. That is a particularly pernicious asymmetry, given that rigor is generally impossible in environmental sciences.

Other scientists quickly agreed that with increasing carbon dioxide some warming might be expected and that with large enough concentrations of carbon dioxide the warming might be significant. Nevertheless, there was widespread skepticism. By early 1989, however, the popular media in Europe and the United States were declaring that "all scientists'' agreed that warming was real and catastrophic in its potential. (emphasis - mine)

But than again, spook has Mikie Crichton

Funny, Barney, I could throw the reverse of that back at you. I'd stack Michael Chrichton's scientific knowledge up against Al Gore's any day. I'd be interested in seeing the credentials of the 19 climate scientists who raved about Gore's movie. Got any links?

yeah, I don't get it either... let the states handle this stuff.
Posted by: KCJ at June 27, 2006 01:55 PM

Xcuse me KCJ, but even I with my meager congnitive resources was able to get down to the second line of the article which said: Though like any graduate of a private school it did have to read pert near ten minutes.

Spurred by states in a pollution battle with the Bush administration,

I agree though we should only support the rights of States to govern themselves, if we approve of what they desiare to do first that is. Mayhap be that we may need to amend our core conservative belief in the sacredness of the States Rights. For example laws for the folks of Oregan must firstly pass a consensus in Carolina. I don't want them folks up thar doin stuff I don't approve of.

Ma Aplogies fir teh double post. Thar seems ta be something wrong with yur system

Well, that was supposed to say, "Doesn't it bother you that the "scientific community" has been in consensus about global warming" since......Not sure how I f..ked it up. God I hate computers.

How about this spook (the AP story is at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science;_ylt=AkczrgxawOtcc7iR_gyGzaOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM-):

In 2000 Frank Luntz (conservative pollster)advised “W” on global warming:

“The scientific debate remains open. Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”

Here is what he says today:

LUNTZ: It’s now 2006. Now I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behavior of humans are affecting the climate.

Thanks to thinkprogress

Spook and kjs:

I won't make up my mind about global warming until I consult with my dentist and chiropractor.

"Supreme Court Debates Regulation of 'Greenhouse' Gases"

How do they propose to "regulate" volcanos? "Ring of Fire vs US Supreme Court" Smackdown! (Pay-per-view only).

...Oh wait! I know!

To regulate "greenhouse" gases, the US Supreme Court will pass a law mandating liberal Democrats who believe in "global warming" be sacrificed to the Ring of Fire Volcanos! These liberal Democrats will happily jump into the volcanos because afterall the Eeevil humans who caused global warming should be culled to help out Mother Earth.

Answer me this O great Blogs for Bush: W just anounced that global warming is happening and is a real threat. He, however, adds that there is still some debate on mankind's role in it. Yet, the solutions he proposes, 'nucular' power, renewable energy, clean coal etc in order to reduce CO2 sound strikingly similar to those proposed by the advocates. Worse yet, if man has nothing to do with it, why propose reduction of manmade greenhouse gasses to solve the "problem?"

Is this what is commonly referred to as talking out of both sides of your A$$?

hmmm, interesting article out today:

Scientists OK Gore's movie for accuracy

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Tue Jun 27, 4:24 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth,"
Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit — such as changing light bulbs — the world could help slow or stop global warming.

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers.
President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and
NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

Freedom1, you sound banana cuckoo.

LUNTZ: It’s now 2006. Now I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place

Barney, I don't think you will get much argument on this statement, either on this blog or in the scientific community. It's pretty universally recognized that the planet has warmed about 1 to 1.5 degrees in the last century.

and that the behavior of humans are affecting the climate.

The only argument you're likely to get on this statement is the extent to which the warming is anthropogenic, and what, if anything mankind can do to reverse the trend. On this there is significant disagreement, even among scientists.

Ash, you ARE banana cuckoo. Perfect name you have for jumping into a volcano to ameliorate the global warming situation!
:P

Aarontime, Ash, wade Blarney and 3 more tears:

Scientists support Gore???

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

"In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the “more than 100 top climate researchers” they attempted to contact to review “An Inconvenient Truth.” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore “five stars for accuracy.” AP claims 19 scientists viewed Gore’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific “skeptics” they claim to have contacted."

Read it and weep girls.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

Spook,

First of all... how ya doin? I got your latest email, and I apologize for not responding. But I'm still on the road, and will be until early next week. At least that's what I hope.

Anyway, I'm glad you are interested in authoritative analyses on the problem of global warming. But I'm guessing Michael Crichton isn't your best source. Dr. Lindzen is better, but he is a single source as well. You might want to also check out what the Union of Concerned Scientists and what the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)
have to say.

Wade...beyond dispute? LOL. I guess I'll ignore Harvard, UCLA, MIT, Stanford, etc that dispute it.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

Matt- Normally, I would agree that it isn't an issue for the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, although even Dubya acknowleges that global warming is a major problem, he has done nada. Why? Well both he and Cheney are ex-oilmen who let the oil execs write our energy policy, without any input from environmentalists. Oil CEO's obviously do not want to confront global warming, as it would force them to admit that Americans burning large amounts of fossel fuels and driving large SUV's are contributing to it. The last thing they want to do is cut back on profits to shareholders and those obscene golden parachutes that they get at retirement.

So since this major problem has been put on the backburner, other issues have surfaced that feed GW's base-flag-burning, gay marriage, the death tax, and distract our country from dealing with this looming crisis. The states, concerned at the total lack of leadership from the president on this issue, have resorted to sueing to get Bush to control C02 emission levels. Thus, the Supremes are forced to get involved.
Flooding, more intense hurricanes and periodic droughts will become the norm. We are already seeing more intense weather patterns. Here in Maryland we've gotten 3 months worth of rain in three days, and its still coming. Parts of downtown Washington were shut down and in parts of my county, people are evacuating.
How many Americans are wondering where we'd be on this and other issues if the Supreme Court had sided with Gore instead of Bush in 2000? How many in Florida, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana have faith that the federal gov't can handle it if we have a hurricane season like the last one?The wars we are having over scarce resources may be just beginning. In Africa, many countries can't sustain their populations because of wide-spread drought and lack of clean drinking water. Do we want that here? Do rich Republicans think that Bush's tax cuts will help them survive whats coming?

How many signs do you wingnuts need to see before you stop burying your heads in the sand and start to deal with the reality of the new American century?

Even tho Dubya acknowledges that global warming is a valid threat to the planet, he has done nada in terms of offering leadership. Our energy policy was written by oil execs that were invited to the White House by Cheney. No environmentalists were allowed any input.
This void has forced the states to sue Washington to get C02 emissions curbed. Thus the involvement by the courts.
I have to say that had Gore not had the 2000 election stolen from him by Katherine Harris, we would have gone down a far saner path on this and many other issues. There has been a power and a wealth grab by Bush and his corporate base, that has been unprecedented, while at the same time, they have failed to move America into the future.

I must once again bring up this petition brought up during the Kyoto discussion.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Over 17,000 scientists, with over 2,000 climatologists and other environmental scientists alone. (As explained in the opening page)

Now this is true that this was a few years ago. But even then we were hearing that "the issue was settled." So please don't assume that everyone agrees. You can never get everyone to agree on something.

More current scientists who don't "completely agree" we have NASA Dr. Roy Spencer asking Gore some direct questions about his movie.

http://patriotpost.us/news/questions.asp

Is a former NASA climate scientist count as having a bit more information that Mr. Gore hmm? Or how about a CURRENT NASA scientist?

"NASA scientist James Hansen, director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues, "The natural fluctuations of climate are still large -- at least, the natural fluctuations of weather compared to long-term climate change." (Hansen, it should be noted, is a liberal who publicly endorsed the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry.)

Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, is a bit less nuanced about Gore's claims: "[Global warming] is a hoax." "

(Source: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/markalexander/2006/06/23/202530.html)

Oh, well we're all American capitalists so these guys should be ignored. Well how about some news from our friends in Canada?

"No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field. "

(Source: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)

But hey, no sense paying attention to "dissenting views." I mean I'm just a conservative and I'm blamed for doing just that all the time. :p

Shoot... I clicked on "Post" rather than "Preview". Anyway, I wanted to add that one thing Gore has done is to shine a light on an issue that has the potential to be fundamentally significant in the annals of human society. To dismiss it on some kind of ideological grounds (i.e., Gore's a Democrat, and therefore I can dismiss anything he says as total crap) is not only stupid, it's dangerous. Likewise, to accept what Gore says purely on the basis of ideological proclivities is equally erroneous. It's about the science, not the politics. Or at least it should be.

/Agree

Agreed Ricorun. Though that's exactly what happens. Folks jump on whatever they want to agree with no matter what comes next.

Do I agree that temperatures change over time? Heck yeah I do, I've been to Yosemite and I'm glad the weather changed to get rid of all that ice.

Do I agree that mankind has a signifigant global impact on temperature changes? No. I've spoken personally to too many folks in the scientific industry to just blindly agree with that kind of jump.

Rico, I figured you were on the road. If you re-read my post, you'll see that I didn't use Michael Chrichton as an expert source on global warming; I just cited his statement about the dangers of "consensus science". And I did cite Lindzen to show that the so-called "consensus" goes back to before there were even any facts on the table on which to have a consensus. Lindzen is pretty sharp guy and definitely an intellectual heavyweight among the anthropogenic warming skeptics.

I didn't have time to get into your second link, but the first one (Union of Concerned Scientists) looks like much of the global warming/junk science/baloney that's become so prevalent today. It's all so long on doomsday scenarios and short on realistic solutions that it's getting hard to take most of it very seriously.

Boy do we go round and round and always end up in the same spot. If for no other reason than to enjoy fresher air or cleaner water, we all should favor curbing carbon dioxide emmissions. We should prosecute factories that pollute the water. We should demand clean and efficient transportation.

And if 99.7% of scientists are wrong and we are not adding to global warming, well, we will be healthier and probably live longer anyway.

Not everything can be judged by the almighty bottom line.

You know Ash, it's not like we're against "Cleaner air or water." We're just against insanely exagerated limits on certain things. For instance in California even if I can get my car to run cleaner than required out the pipe, if all of the parts in my exhaust system aren't "CARB" numbered I fail smog. (It's like California Air Responsibility Board or some such)

Or requiring that farm monitor the "gas output" of their animals. Or requiring the drop of CO2 outputs by another .5% when the benefits can't be measured. We already have cleaner running versions of most everything then the orginal versions. All for very good reasons. The point is that there is a point where more regulations and restrictions are counter productive or don't produce any difference but cost more.

It's like spending another $10,000 on your car to give that extra 10 HP. Sure you can go maybe 5 MPH faster than the guy who didn't, but was it worth it? Law of dimishing returns my friends.

Boy do we go round and round and always end up in the same spot. If for no other reason than to enjoy fresher air or cleaner water, we all should favor curbing carbon dioxide emmissions. We should prosecute factories that pollute the water. We should demand clean and efficient transportation.

And if 99.7% of scientists are wrong and we are not adding to global warming, well, we will be healthier and probably live longer anyway.

Not everything can be judged by the almighty bottom line.

*Nods head in semi agreement"

I agree some of these methods are rather silly and don't help a whole lot. I live in Colorado where they are phasing out any kind of emissions testing.(My wife drives a hybrid)

I'm looking at the bigger picture. Ever been behind one of those monster semi's on the freeway? Ever pass chemical plant that you could smell before you saw it? Coal plants? City busses? I just think it is time to make some major changes in the way we do things.

Spook: Richard Lindzen may well be a heavyweight, but that is because his pockets are lined with gold bars from coal and oil interests that hire him as a scientific skeptic. Heck Lindzen knows who butters his bread.

BTW you may want to check out his relations with the Reverend Sun Young Moon (Washington Times). Bet he has a lot of butter on his bread from that dish.

Google: Moon + Lindzen

Ah but Ash, have you been around those things before? Ever been over to Greely? (I went to College at CSU in Fort Collins.)

These things you mention are FAR better than they were five, ten, or fifteen years ago. Could they use some improvement? Possibly, but just a sweeping cut isn't what is needed. Every area should assess their own situation and see what is needed.

I remember growing up and not being able to drive through San Bernardino and see farther than a mile. Now I can see at least ten. Things aren't getting worse. If we see something that needs fixed, sure go right ahead. But just blanketly stating that "all semi's are bad" is just as bad as saying "all Liberals hate guns." :)

In 1999, President Bush called carbon dioxide "one of four main pollutants" that needed "mandatory reduction targets for emissions." But he changed his position in a 2003 letter that claimed it "is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act."

FLIP-FLOP?

On some days I can smell Greeley here in Loveland. I'm not so sure we disagree Gozer. But I didn't say ALL semi's are bad. Surely you have seen some that spew black fumes that make Greeley smell sweet. Don't you think we need regulations that make all of them conform to some standard of acceptability?

If we differ, it is in the amount of regulations that should be put on industries that pollute. Left on their own, they only think of their bottom line and reducing pollution is often seen as an unacceptable yoke on profits.

Have you been to LA lately? I swear the palm trees are less green and more gray and road signs have a layer of exhaust fumes that make them hard to read. The last time I went to Yosemite, there was pollution drifting up from LA and San Francisco that dimmed the gorgeous overlooks.

So in summary, I say be reasonable in controlling pollution. Err on the side of the environment. I am not one of those eco nuts that hugs trees. I'm just a photographer that would like to photograph the Yosemite Valley without smoggy haze. I would like to breathe cleaner air. Drink purer water.

Like the old saying goes: We have not inherited the land from our parents. We have borrowed it from our children.

Remember the whole Iraqi WMD "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" thing? Remember Cheney's "one percent doctrine", which said that threats with even a 1% likelihood must be treated as certainties? Remember how people said that "we can't take that risk"? Bush was ecstatic to send thousands of troops to their death for some pretty flimsy intelligence.

I'm sure most people would agree that there is much greater than a one percent chance that global warming is real, and the results could be catastrophic. Why are the Republicans willing to take that risk?

It's about sacrifice. Sacrifice is anathema to Republicans. That's why they support the Iraq war--not one Republican leader has been to war and their is no draft to ensure that all Americans pay the price. That's why they cut taxes during wartime--they want to have their cake and eat it too and pass the bill to the next generation. And that's why they are willfully blind to the dangers of global warming--they can't imagine giving up their extra huge SUV for a huge SUV.

Wyckyd Sceptre -

Well put!

Yes, it is very curious how the Bushicans were all about pre-emptively heading off even the most unlikely threat, because we just couldn't afford to take the risk. Although the "evidence" of a threat from Iraq - as demonstrated by Powell's pathetically flimsy presentation at the UN - amounted no more than suspicious hunches and cherry-picked tidbits, the Bushicans were hot to invade Iraq asap. The Bushicans wagged their finger at the "naive" skeptics, sermonizing that we could not afford to wait for the threat to materialize before taking "swift, bold action!".

In his Feb 2003 report to the UN, Hans Blix said the inspectors were making good progress, and that, with only a couple exceptions that were subsequently rectified, the inspectors were getting unfettered and unannounced access to all suspected sites. Blix went on to say that the inspections would be completed by July, and he pleaded with the council to allow that mission to be fulfilled before taking action. With war fervor having peaked, however, the Bushicans could not allow the inspectors even those few months until July. Had we let the inspections process complete, we would have had much better information on what kind of a threat - if any - Iraq posed. But no, the Bushicans wouldn't wait - the "threat" had to be dealt with immediately, they told us.

For months leading up to the fall 2002 elections, Bushicans beat democrats over the heads if any dared express even the slightest doubt about the threat posed by Iraq. The war resolution vote was a political win-win for Darth Rove, in that democrats who voted against it would get tarred as "soft", "unpatriotic" and "supporters of terrorism", while any democratic votes in favor could be used as CYA in case the WMD didn't turn up and the war became a fiasco (and now that the war has indeed proved to be a stinking debacle, how many times have we heard the Bushicans repeat, "well, you voted for it!"). In response to clear-headed skeptics of the possible threat posed by Iraq, Bushicans hurled shrill statements like, "are you willing to bet LA or NY or Miami or Houston that Saddam doesn't have WMD?"

While the Bushicans weren't willing to wait - even for a few months to gather better information - in the case of Iraq, in the case of the threat posed by global warming they are willing to wait an eternity. Now they are suddenly "tough-minded skeptics" who want to gather more evidence! The bar has suddenly been raised to the stratosphere on the level of evidence needed before action is taken against a threat.

Maybe someone should scream at the Bushicans on the House Floor, "Hey, are you willing to bet NY, Miami, Calcutta, and Houston that global warming isn't happening?". (half the world's population and 13 of the world's 20 largest cities are in coastal areas that are threatened by rising ocean levels).

The evidence for a significant human contribution to global warming is becoming mountainous. That evidence is far far more extensive and well corroborated than the laughably thin evidence of the threat from Iraq. But it seems that no amount of scientific data on climate change and its links to fossil fuels will ever be sufficient to take action. The deniers will go on refuting the obvious no matter how dire the effects produced by gloabl warming become. "Now lets not be too hasty!", they will council us, "nobody knows what is really causing global warming, so lets do nothing until we've studied this for another 300 years."

Why the complete shift in the Bushican reponse threshold to a percieved threat? Well, the obvious reason is that they had much to gain (politically and monetarily) by threat mongering in the case of Iraq, while they have much to lose if the world decides fossil fuel emissions pose a threat. It really is just that simple.