Conservatives believe in personal freedom and free markets. Limits on those rights are appropriate when they serve overriding social goods, but not when they are serving junk science.

Liberal use these issues to control and command the economy and personal freedoms. They frankly don't like too much freedom because they abhor the disparities that it creates and they are offended by consumptive lifesytles that they believe are greedy and wasetful, even if the individual is using their own money.

So, conservatives view global warming hysteria as a new way for liberals to diminish liberty and freedom. If there is a global warming problem (whether or not caused by mankind), technology and market based solutions should be applied.

Liberals view clamors of economic ruin caused by mankind as providing them the tool they have always wanted, to further direct individual behavior and economic activity towards their personal perspectivies of the social good. They will pursue these command strategies notwithstanding an attenuated linkage of global warming issues.

I hope that clears it up for you.

I challenge the entire premise that the planet is warming. I choose to look at all the evidence instead of "the debate is over" nonsense we hear from the left, which means "we don't want to talk about it any more because we are getting our butts kicked by the facts" on the other side of the argument.

Actually, I didn't find either comment very enlightening. Mr. Reid suggests it's a matter of "personal freedom," but doesn't identify any freedoms he feels are threatened by the global warming "hysteria."

(As an aside, I wonder which personal freedoms conservatives hold so dear that liberals supposedly despise - a woman's freedom to have an abortion, or the freedom to marry the one you love, regardless of gender?)

Mr. Der Manouel just disagrees with the majority scientific opinion regarding climate change, without offering any reason why (if you choose to believe the minority opinion on an issue, you should have a rational reason for doing so). Nor does he explain why it's such an emotional hot-button issue on the Right.

All the Presidential candidates realize something must be done on this issue. see link:
http://www.heatison.org/candidates

Bush acknowledges a problem but has little to show on the subject.

See funny link, Will Ferrell - Bush on Global Warming.

http://www.transbuddha.com/mediaHolder.php?id=1147

...God forgive me for offering this explantion on xmas eve, but I'm thinking about Huckabee and his fervant belief that scientists are perpetrating a hoax when they describe a world that is billions of years old...his "faith" allows him to feel confident that actualy, the age of the world can be better described in terms of hundreds of years, and that any other view could only be from someone under the sway of the diety he calls "Satan" ...now that ignorant, superstitious, knuckleheads,are tolerated, taken seriously, or in the case of Limbaugh, exalted, for their "wisdom", when faux news gives equal time to crackpots, it's easy to imagine people believing almost anything...or maybe, once again, it comes down to that recent scientific study that found "conservatives" are simply not cut out for critical thinking...

I know that this is hard to believe, but I remember a lecture by Dr. Provost from my days as a political science major at Fresno State. Dr. Provost was no liberal. He described to our class the “continuum of change.” Liberals were for change, conservatives resisted, to the point of wanting to go backward. Moderates were for slow change. Radicals wanted to change things quickly, reactionaries wanted to go back to the dark ages.

The warming of the planet will require change, regardless of its cause. If our activities are making things worse, than it will really require us to change or behavior. Conservatives don’t want to change. So, the greater the need for change, the more conservatives will likely resist.

Other examples are: American Revolution (conservatives sided with the King), end of slavery, women’s right to vote, civil rights, gay marriage…

Scharton, You also left out that conservatives did not believe the world was round untill so called "junk science" proved them wrong.

my bad

...but what they lack in critical thinking, is compensated by a tenacity so strong that they're still fervantly fighting liberalism full-time, even though the last one left town sometime during the Reagan administration, now they are freaked-out at the prospect of a "socialist" Clinton presidency, when, by any measure, she falls to the right of Margerat Thatcher, one their own demi-gods, (can you imagine Thatcher handing over the health and well-being of Great Britain to a handfull of wealthy campaign contributers?)...when Newt Ginrich (another demi-god of the right) met Al Gore for a debate about climate change,a funny thing happened,...there was no disagreement that climate-change was this single most important issue of our time, the debate narrowed to the issue of how to deal with it... I know Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer and as such, should not be taken too seriously, the freedom of speech allows him to say anything he wants for 15 hours a week,and he dont like no environmental wackos,a drug-addicted, felon who spent 4 million dollars on lawyers to beat a 5000-count narcotics possession rap, this guy is a thrice divorced, high school dropout, that doesn't read, has never raised children, or served in the military and clearly has serious "father-issues" that render him an angry, pathological, and unapologetic liar. I swear, sometimes his minions remind me of children before they figure out the impossibility of the whole " santa" myth... ..with apologies to Virginia, happy Mithras birthday

How about:

1. It’s poor science. (IF there is a consensus - it proves nothing; when is science ever proven by consensus? The scientific consensus in Nazi Germany was that the Aryan race was superior. BTW, more and more scientists are coming out with disagreements with so-called environmental science). Are we really willing to turn our science over to the likes of Art Bell and Whitley Strieber?

One of the most astounding things, at least to me is, supposedly reputable scientists that cannot distinguish between theory and fact; cannot distinguish between a computer model and fact. True science has been abandoned for sensationalism (showing kids pictures of cute & cuddly, so-called stranded polar bears cubs, etc).

2. Global warming advocates never seem to account for earth’s eons-long warming-cooling cycles.

3. Global warming comes with an agenda (the new home of the Marxist-Leinist movement; global warming is the perfect template for Marxism because it's the great equalizer). Wherever you find an global warming environmentalist, you will also find the same group of people who are also anti-Bush, anti-Haliburton, we-are-in-Iraq-because-of-oil, anti-SUV, pro-abortion, pro-evolution, anti-2nd amendment, flag- burners, ant-nuclear power, Greenpeace-loving, pro-animal rights, anti-fur, anti-death penalty, pro-terrorist, anti-business, we-should-never-defend-our-nation, earth-firsters, zero-population growth, open boarders advocates, etc. It’s all the same rabble.

4. It’s anti-business (therefore, having an economic effect on us all). Somebody will pay for all of this nonsense. That means more taxes.

5. It’s chief proponent is Ozone Al Gore, whose deportment is that of a complete moron. Has anybody listened to him lately? Have you heard him speak? Soooo ...... condescending.

6. Global warming advocates are represented by very "strange people," dare I say, wackos (or to paraphrase Ann Coulter, "six-fingered lunatics"): Sheryl Crow has said a ban on using too much toilet paper should be introduced to help the environment. Crow has suggested using "only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required."

Gore invokes the image of a 20-foot rise in the sea level - no reputable scientist has ever come to such a conclusion. (Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But that’s cool - Gore has purchased "carbon offsets"). "The Branch Algorians read from the Gospel of Al and never question a word."

The European Union considers flatulence from cows and sheep to be a ominous threat to the planet because of its contribution to global warming. The U.N.'s says rice farming is a main cause of rising methane emissions.

Dim-witted actor Leonardo DiCaprio, according to the global warming advocates, has more credibility than those who have studied eons-long cyclical climatic changes. You figure!

Anti-forestry, global warming activists are telling us to stop cutting trees, leave the underbrush, use less wood. Remember the So. California fires a few months back? Now the mud-slides!

Or as one columnist opined: ".... (global warming advocates say) cattle farming endangers the planet by producing too much methane. So now, steaks and hamburgers are classified as instruments of destruction, along with large vehicles, lawn mowers, and charcoal grills."

7. It’s all about the money. Millions if not billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of the global warming advocates. Grants flow to those who conform. No global warming, no money. To sustain a crisis, we need to study it. The MONEY FLOW is dependent on the perceived problem getting worse. Jesse Jackson figured that out years ago.

8. THE STARTING POINT OF ALL GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS ALWAYS: THERE IS NO GOD.

Maybe we need conservatives, if only to put a brake on bad ideas, and make us think things through when we advocate for change. So in that sense, they might serve a useful function.

They sure mess things up when they get put in charge, though, don't they?

Why does Limbaugh fulminate so much about global warming? Because he's a creature of the big corporations, and mitigation of CO2 emissions is going to cost them big time.

It won't affect individual freedom very much. Conservatives should be uptight about stuff like the ability of police to confiscate property because they suspect that a crime has been committed. Now THAT's an infringement of rights.

All the politicians have some idiotic special interest. I don't think any of them know anything about the environment or care about it. We should care for the sake of our children and just make the best quality of life we can possibly make. The world will end when God makes it end whether by global warming or however he chooses.

Just wondering if other conservatives agree with anything Morgan has posted, or is it a fringe far right point of view?

Comrades, don't be late to the 6:00 p.m. Marxist-Leninist Club meeting. The topic of today's agenda will be "How to overthrow the U.S. Capitalists by way of the environmental wedge issues".

...god help me, T.C., I have never enjoyed your intellect more,..that was a masterful piece, freakin brilliant, and I love you brother, but I'm goin wit Jackie on this one...wont somebody please think of the children?

"One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. And so it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom, according to the Washington Times, "are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis." In a report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, these scientists cast doubt on a "scientific consensus" that global warming caused by humans endangers the planet."

Complete Op Ed at:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7800976

And please, lefties: the Republican origin of the report carries no further bias than anything put out by Al Gore or the UN

Mr. Der Manouel, can you offer any reason for us to believe those "400 scientists" rather than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists? Other than preferring their point of view, that is?

And if you're referring to the 400 scientists listed in that "Senate Report" (actually more like a blog from Sen. Inhofe), you are mistaken if you think they all disagree with global warming. Many of them do agree it's occuring, but have other issues with the consensus opinion.

And you still haven't offered any reason for being so opposed. Is it just that Al Gore is a prominent advocate of the issue?

I really enjoy the empty headed viewpoints of "conservatives" like, J. Reid, Der Manouel,T.C. Morgan, Limbaugh (the drug-addict), Ann Coulter, Bush, etc. These individuals spout look-alike viewpoints plagiarized from one another.

I would challenge these empty-headed conservatives to go live on a low lying oceanic island, coastal Bangladesh, or a beach in Florida, etc. and await the coming sea-level rise. In fact given 10 - 50 years, much of the Florida voting problem will be eliminated.

Represented among research scientists investigating climate change facts and building climatic models based on past geologic history are both conservative and liberal political viewpoints.

Unlike the above named political conservatives and entertainers parading as knowledgeable, there exists a growing body of knowledge that is repetitively tested and refined showing that global warming is real.

Yes, the earth has gone through cycles of warmer and colder climates in the geologic past, on scales of both tens of thousands of years and millions of years. (Huckabee, Bush, etc. and the anti-evolution/creationist/intelligent design crowd may choose not to believe in an earth 4.6 billion years old, but such silliness informs me as a voter.)

The current global warming/climate change problem is that the human population of the past was small or non existent in eras older than a few million years before humans evolved. Today’s overpopulated, in terms of humans, earth is intensely dependent on the current climatic conditions of water supply and sea level. It is the RATE of the coming climate change coupled with these facts that is a problem for us and our children.

I would challenge these empty-headed conservatives and their children to go live on a low lying oceanic island or on the beach in Florida and await the coming sea-level rise. It would be wonderful to tie President Bush down on such a beach, and let him experience his non-torture of “sea level rise waterboarding.”

Finally, these attacks on science by President Bush, Intelligent Designers, young-earthers and other “empty-headed” and other illogical conservatives, represent a grave (terrorist?) threat to our national security. How long can these so called “leaders” continue to attack and undermine the findings of well regarded scientists, including Nobel Prize winners in Science, before young people say, “why enter science if Presidents and their appointees disregard their findings.” With these “conservative” malcontents threaten the U.S. leadership in science, medicine, and engineering.

Don’t even ask these “empty-headed” conservatives for their “reality” regarding the number of U.S. dollars held by China, that are underwriting our “off-budget” Iraq war expenses and more. Pull those dollars, and our economy is in recession or depression.

I’m soooo.... confused .... Are you saying, Bob, that it’s really about Bush, not global warming? Hard to tell from your blog. Yet another example of the "return to civility" by the Democrats. Same old Demo tripe - You can't sell a book or prove a point, if you don't dump on Bush.

It always gets back to Bush, with you guys! Nice bunch of people you choose to hang around with: "Michael Moore accused Bush of being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. George Soros said the president's policies reminded him of the Nazis. Cameron Diaz warned that if Bush was reelected, rape would become legal. Randi Rhodes told her radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in 'The Godfather,' should be taken out and shot. Whoopi Goldberg headlined a New York fund-raiser in which Bush was called a 'thug' and a 'killer.' Howard Dean speculated publicly about the 'interesting theory' that Bush knew what was going to happen on Sept. 11 but kept silent." (Jeff Jacoby).

Whoa! Rush dropped out of high school? Well, there goes my opinion of Henry Ford, Thomas Edison, Abe Lincoln, and--that loser who got expelled from college--Albert Einstein!

Okay, so let's concede that Rush isn't exactly an environmental expert. So... let's see Al Gore's credentials in the area of natural science. I have a geography degree, including some classes on climate and weather, but I'm no expert, either. But, I know a few related facts...

Like Henry Ford did, Al can hire experts to feed him information. Last I heard, Rush isn't exactly in the poor house; can't he hire researchers as well?

T.C. has made some points worth pondering, and I'll add a couple as well:

1. Go to a website advocating radical action to stop global warming and I can almost guarantee that within 2-3 clicks, you'll be able to link to other sites supporting Earth First!, "grow your own" advocates of marijuana, pro-choice, Robert Maplethorpe-type of "free speech" manipulators, anti-war (even in defense of our own soil), and so on. These organizations have traditionally held far left beliefs that would highly restrict our way of life in the long run.

2. Search ("google" is not a verb : ) ) for "ice age" and once you get past the animated movie results, you'll find facts about the natural cycle of warming and cooling that has existed long before humans existed on the planet. I recommend avoiding opinionated websites; stick to fact-based sites.

3. Since the beginnings of civilization, humans have always had an agenda behind their actions. It is still the same today, and that's why we all need to know how to find out information for ourselves, not just accept what some charismatic figure (be it Al or Rush) has to say.

4. Okay, not a point but strictly an opinion: I can't stand politicians, editorial staffers, and publicists who manipulate the phrase "It's for the children!" or "Think of our children..." when stating their case. I see at least two blog entries above who do so, as well. I remember in junior high learning the names of propaganda techniques--emotional plea and red herring. I see it as propaganda, period.

5. Finally, for those who wish to criticize people who refer to the Bible, I encourage you to be grateful that most of our founding fathers also read the Bible, and subsequently based all of our continuing freedoms on Judeo-Christian ideals such as truth, justice, and faith. Read every one of these entries by each of the writers, and understand that short of threatening to break the law, we can state ANY point of view (even sympathy for philosophies that contradict our freedoms) without fear of an armed military member knocking on our door to "discourage" us from further discourse.

Sorry, Mr. Boren, but I don't think I really addressed your question, but points 1 & 3 might be a starting point!

Global warming is not Bushes fault so I don't know why people are trying to blame him for everything. For him as anyone in his office things can't be done without all of the politicians to back him up which will never happen with him or anyone else in office. Until they all start wporking together nothing will ever be accomplished and our country will continue to fall apart and become weaker. Bush is not out there with a torch melting everything.

"THE STARTING POINT OF ALL GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS ALWAYS: THERE IS NO GOD."

As a former pastor of ten years at a conservative evangelical church I strongly disagree with this statement. There are many people of faith around the world who feel that climate change is a valid and important issue. I have found that many of these people do not view this as a liberal vs. conservative debate for themselves but a matter of fidelity to one of God's first commands in the bible (Genesis 1:26-28), stewardship of the earth.

Also, the important work of Christian leaders like Richard Cizik, Cal DeWitt, Matthew Sleeth, Peter Illyn, Melanie Griffin, Lyndsay Moseley, and many others ... and organizations like A Rocha, Florista, and Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN) should be noted.

There was a pretty good show on PBS entitled "Is God Green?"
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/index.html

From PBS...
"A new holy war is growing within the conservative evangelical community, with implications for both the global environment and American politics. For years liberal Christians and others have made protection of the environment a moral commitment. Now a number of conservative evangelicals are joining the fight, arguing that man's stewardship of the planet is a biblical imperative and calling for action to stop global warming."

I have to disagree with the person who equated environmentalism with godlessness. In fact, trying to preserve the environment for distant and future peoples and societies you know is an act of faith; caring about others beyond your immediate surroundings/wants/needs by definition invokes a higher consciousness or spirituality.

Many societies have already collapsed due in part to climate change. That is a fact. Many more from environmental damage. Fact. Societies will continue to collapse due to all these factors. The earth will change (respect mother nature, because she has no respect for you) some from forces beyond our control or that we can’t fully understand, some from our actions. I highly recommend Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed" for some perspective on how past civilizations have dealt with survival when faced with change, for better or for worse. A quote from a review by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker (Wikipedia):

“[The book’s] distinction between social and biological survival is a critical one, because too often we blur the two, or assume that biological survival is contingent on the strength of our civilizational values... The fact is, though, that we can be law-abiding and peace-loving and tolerant and inventive and committed to freedom and true to our own values and still behave in ways that are biologically suicidal.

I think we have to separate the two issues if we are going to get anywhere in the debate.

Pastor:

Nobody is suggesting that "earth stewardship" is not important (Genesis 1). It is important for us evangelicals to recognize that "God’s invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..." (Romans 1) - His creation. Simply put, God’s creation is to be treated right. (We used to call it, "conservation," not "environmentalism").

I know of no "believer" who would deliberately, knowingly mistreat what God has created. But, the "global warming movement" is not about that! It has another obvious agenda, the destruction of society as we know it. Most religions seek the betterment of humanity, the global warming advocates seek the opposite. Their unreasonable demands will result in serious economic harm for those who need help the most, third-world countries.

A case can be made that the global warming crowd is starting a new religion. To paraphrase myself from other previous blogs: "When you consider that the global warming crowd approaches their causes with a religious fervor, I surmise, that there might be yet a further agenda that the eco-wackos haven’t publicized. Perhaps, a belief in the 'Gaia - Mother Earth' concept may be a subversive, albeit a crude attempt at replacing a belief in the God of the Bible ... environmentalism is the new political correct religion that demands total, coercive compliance and obedience. Their prime deity is none other than the Earth - Mother Earth - Mother Gaia."

We dare not, as evangelical Christian believers, identify ourselves with the Ozone Al - "Earth-In-The-Balance” - Ingrid Newkirk -"A-rat-is-a-chicken-is-a-child" - Ted Kaczynski methodology of the global warming movement.

Doesn’t it bother you that the main advocates of the global warming movement are fruitcakes and wackos? Where is your discernment?

Many (?) evangelical Christians are caught up in the notion that only government and UN action are the methods to fight this perceived threat.

Genesis 8 - the chapter about Noah and the ark - tells us of a promise by God never to use global flood-waters (Remember, Gore’s irrational prediction of a 20 foot rise in sea levels) again as a means of destroying life on earth, "as long as the earth endures."

There is another promise in Genesis 8 - that cold and heat shall not cease. What does that mean for us? It means that God, not man, controls the world's climate. God controls our environment, the earth's "eco-system," not man. It is absolute lunacy for man to believe that he and he alone controls the destiny of God's creation.

I stand on what I’ve previously stated - that the starting point of all global warming theory is always: There is no God. It is troubling to me that many evangelicals have made a conscious choice to identify with this anti-God crowd.

Rational (adj.): 1) Having or exercising reason, sound judgement or good sense. 2) Being in or characaterized by full possesion of one's reason; sane; lucid.

Irrational (adj.): 1) Without the faculty of reason. 2) Without or deprived of sound judgement.

Faith (noun): Belief which is not based on proof.

Proof (noun): Evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true.

If those who choose to believe, by faith, and in the absence of any proof whatsoever, in the existence of supernatural forces and in an omniscient and omnipotent being or beings (perhaps 3 of them in some strange poorly defined conglomeration), who see and control the events which happen here on Earth, allowing some to prosper but idly sitting by while the vast majority suffer miserbly, yet who proffer the reward of everlasting bliss to those who agree to psychically embrace the rulership of some mysterious magically reincarnated son god (sun god?), want to furthermore claim that they somehow also have the ability to logically and rationally determine the truth value of statements such as "on average, it's getting warmer" then let 'em try. But for me, the belief in the one precludes reasonable intelligence to do the other.

holy smokes Jim, this was truly "the gift that just keeps giving", thanks to all the bloggers, for their passion, and clever writing.... what if the "branch algoridians" are right? surely it cant hurt to approach the future with a little more reverance for the big Mama?

One more thing, just so all you fundy folks don't think I'm one sided in my sarcastic rejection of your point of view. I find the lefty liberal lamenting of the poor polar bears is just as nauseating. Forget the polar bears folks! It's your own sorry tails ya oughta be worried about. The buzz word of this next century is going to be... drum roll please... ADAPTATION! Those capable of adapting will survive the coming changes; those incapable of thinking, learning, and living flexibly simply won't. Take the "poor polar bears" for example. They lack the ability to readily learn new ways of hunting, hiding, and nuturing their young, so when the ice melts (and it will) they're toast. Forget donating to the "Save the Poor Polar Bears" fund unless you wanna see the last few preserved in zoos somewhere. They might last a few more generations beyond when the last wild bear with white fur is gone, but they'll never make it once their habitat is gone. What will happen is the brown furred grizzly (which is very closely related) will expand its territory northward to the shores of the by then open water Arctic Ocean and they will thrive in place of the white bears whose niche will be gone.

Speaking of open waters, maybe some of you free market business types would like a tip: Invest in or create companies to ship goods from the north coast of Canada directly across the Arctic Ocean to Russia. Of course, the very idea of doing business with a former member of the Axis of Evil may be anathema to you, but that brings me back to my previous point about the ability to adapt.

Oh, and one more thing... Rebuilding New Orleans?? What the heck does Brad Pitt think he's doing? That's gonna turn out to be the biggest waste of money in the history of flipping real-estate. The oceans will rise when the ice melts (and it will) and New Orleans, including the French Quarter, to say nothing of the Ninth Ward, as well as Miami and Manhattan, is gonna be underwater. The Army Corps is never gonna be able to build a dam, dike, or sea-wall strong enough and tall enough to hold back the rising tide.

It's coming. Get ready. Adapt or die.

There most certainly is a God, he created the earth and he can do swith it as he pleases. We are just to do what we can to respect and take care of it the best we can.

TC:

There are many evangelicals who have the view that humans have the right to use the earth for whatever purposes they want (good or bad) because they think it will be destroyed by God in the end. Also, some evangelicals react very strongly against any "green" or conservation type values because they equate it all with "those wacko liberals." Terms like this break down conversational bridges and don't help any.
The reality is that there are many people of faith who do not think earth stewardship is important. In conservative evangelical churches this is a topic not adequately addressed. The impression that I get from some people in conservative churches is that they would like to get rid of this "climate change hoax" so that we can address the bigger issues of salvation, homosexuality and abortion. One of the things I appreciate about some liberal churches is that they seem to have a better understanding of stewardship, including stewardship of creation.
As far as my discernment goes, I embarked on this journey into "fruitcake and wacko" land after a 3 month sabbatical in which I spent considerable time in Scripture and prayer seeking direction from God. Maybe I should quit praying :)
To imply that anyone who believes this stuff is stupid really isn't fair. I have had the opportunity to meet some very intelligent people - on both sides of the argument. You have obviously put some serious thought into your opinions.

Great passions are felt behind these global warming posts. A life without passion is a life unlived. Add opposing passions to an apathetic electorate & the result just could be a chaotic window of time unmatched in the history of this earth … or not. Coupling one’s passions with service to our desired children’s inheritance in any degree is a good thing. It’s all about ‘baby steps’. Man is a political animal. Again, a singular debate in these posts.

Randy Nelson

For all of the right wing-nuts around here who STILL deny the existence of Global Warming, here is some hope... Your grand high exalted leader has spoken!

Bush Acknowledges Existence Of Carbon Dioxide

WASHINGTON—In an unexpected reversal that environmentalists and scientists worldwide are calling groundbreaking, President George W. Bush, for the first time in his political career, openly admitted to the existence of carbon dioxide following the release of the new U.N. Global Environment Outlook this October.
Enlarge Image Bush Acknowledges

The announcement has wide-ranging implications for exhalation, club soda, and photosynthesis.

"Carbon dioxide, a molecule which contains one atom of carbon bonded with two atoms of oxygen, is a naturally occurring colorless gas exhaled by humans and metabolized, in turn, by plants," Bush told a stunned White House press corps. "As a leading industrialized nation, we can no longer afford to ignore the growing consensus of so many experts whose job it is to study our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is real."

Because carbon dioxide, which was first described by 17th-century Flemish physician Jan Baptista van Helmont as a gas he referred to as "spiritus silvestre," has long been denied by the Bush administration, the president's speech was widely hailed as a victory for advocates of empirically established scientific fact.

"This has been a major step forward for national basic-chemistry policy," said longtime CO2 proponent and eighth-grade science teacher Linda Mattson. "By taking this brave stance, Bush has opened the door for the eventual acknowledgment that other molecular compounds, such as H20, for example, may in fact exist as well."

Many of those whom Bush has long considered to be his most loyal followers, however, have expressed disappointment with the development.

"There is nothing about any 'carbon dioxide' in the Bible," said Rev. Luke Hatfield of Christchurch Ministries in Topeka, KS. "What's next? Claims that so-called 'fossil' fuels come from mythical creatures like dinosaurs? This has been a sad step backward for our nation."

A White House spokesman was careful to categorize the announcement as "cautious," and reiterated that the president is still not ready to take any position on the existence of polar ice caps, ozone, or a controversial idea held by many scientists and often referred to as "weather."

Virtuoso - funny post. Thanks for the laugh.