Jonah Goldberg's got a thought experiment:
What if science could prove 100% that the earth was warming dangerously but that this was 100% natural (i.e. from sunspots or some such)? I suspect this would scatter the current environmental coalitions and antagonists in all sorts of interesting and unexpected ways. To be sure, many environmentalists would still be concerned. But, I think, a large amount of the passion would be gone in certain quarters once the fun of blaming capitalism and mankind was out of the equation. I think the reluctance on the part of some on the right to fix the problem would evaporate while the reluctance to "tamper" with nature would cause at least some environmentalists to second-guess global warming science.
I'm a bit confused by the conservative emphasis on intentions around the global warming debate. There is, to be sure, a genus that simply denies the warming earth, but that species is rapidly dying out. More interesting are the anti-environmentalists -- they seem less concerned with the issue than consumed with their dislike for those talking about it. But let's say global warming is largely natural. How does that actually change the strategy? What's the relevance? Assumedly, the right has some alternative gameplan for dealing with the consequences that differs radically from the left's prescriptions but has been hidden by the liberal media. Could someone point me to the blueprint? And if, as Jonah seems to suggest in the last sentence, the policy prescriptions are rather clear and much of the right is trapped by their dislike for tree huggers, isn't their behavior remarkably irresponsible?
