Solve the global warming problem by simply switching over to energy sources that don't produce greenhouse gases? Wow, why didn't I think of that?

The catch is that this is not going to be either as cheap or as painless as the hucksters tell us it is. The IPCC report is tossing out numbers like a global reduction of 2 percent of GDP by 2020 (assuming that number is credible). You tally that up, then tell me which countries are going to be taking most of that hit.

And unfortunately, most of the movers and shakers pushing the global warming issue are a lot less interested in delivering energy for a robust technical and industrial society than they are in getting a political hammerlock around the neck of that society.

As I recall, you are in favor of building nuclear power plants. This puts you in a rather small group that includes damn few of those movers and shakers, and tells you a lot about the motivations of the latter.

It's politics, Buck.

Look at what it's taking to build windmills at Cape Wind. Look at the people fighting that issue, including some of those movers and shakers. You really think this is about energy for them?

Is the current ethanol boom about effective replacements for gasoline, or is it about schmoozing Midwestern farm voters and heavy duty agricultural contributors?

Who's trying to tear down whatever working hydroelectric systems we have? Republicans?

Kyoto, which was shot down during Clinton's administration, not Bush's, excluded China and India, which should have made the real motivations clear to anyone.