[CJFusco]

I'm still not sure what motivates people to deny global warming, other than a vested interest in fossil fuel futures. What would be the point of the "hoax", if it were indeed a hoax? Why would NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC devote huge amounts of time and effort to showing the effects that climate change has had on polar and sub-polar regions?

Just 2 months ago there was a story about how Malaria has spread to climates where it has never existed before. The reason? Mosquito nests are destroyed with the coming of each winter; because of this, malaria-carrying mosquitoes can only go so far north to breed. Since the temperature trends have been steadily upward, these mosquitoes are making it further and further every year. The systems of checks and balances in nature are breaking down.

I don't understand why many on the Right (not nearly as many as it used to be, though) persist on claiming that climate change is a hoax. What's their agenda? I am not an alarmist - I am a middle-of the road voter whose politics tend toward the liberal side (although I am conservative on many issues, including gun control and feel an attraction toward Barry Goldwater-type conservative tropes), but I am not a tree hugger, hippie, or ivory tower ivy-league elitist. To me it seems that those who claim that climate change is a clear and present danger have facts, figures, and scientific data to back it up. Those who claim that climate change is a hoax rely on the slightly Orwellian tactics of personal attack in order to discredit their opponents - nearly always without scientific data to back up their claims.

Of course, there are scientists on the Right's side. Two issues ago, OUTSIDE magazine ran an interview with a brilliant scientist named Juliet Elperin who has essentially become the touchstone for the Republican end of the climate change debate. But guess what, he isn't claiming that global warming isn't happening, a fact that Rush ignores. His claim is that humans aren't predominently to blame for climate change, that it's a natural process that the earth goes through.

Ok, fine. I disagree, but the claim doesn't sound unreasonable.

Anyone with a brain can see that climate change is happening. All you have to do is use logic: think about Carbon emissions. Human beings emit carbon dioxide, cars emit a lot of carbon dioxide. Plant life, however, through photosynthesis, takes in carbon dioxide and emits oxygen. Over the last 100 years, the population of the Earth has quadrupled. A LOT of these people have cars. At the same time, the simple fact of the matter is that there is a lot less plant life on Earth. The result is a hell of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere than oxygen. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Maybe the debate needs to move away from who/what is to blame for climate change, and toward what we can all do about it. Naturally, I love cars and don't necessarily want to see the internal combustion engine disappear (maybe we can find exemptions for sports cars? I know, this looks an awful lot like NIMBY syndrome).