Climate not right for climate changers

NY Times:

President Obama came into office pledging to end eight years of American inaction on climate change under President George W. Bush, and all year he has promised that the United States would lead the way toward a global agreement in Copenhagen next month to address the warming planet.

But this weekend in Singapore, Mr. Obama was forced to acknowledge that a comprehensive climate deal was beyond reach this year. Instead, he and other world leaders agreed that they would work toward a more modest interim agreement with a promise to renew work toward a binding treaty next year.

The admission places Mr. Obama in the awkward position of being, at least for now, as unlikely to spearhead an international effort to combat global warming as his predecessor — if for different reasons.

In Mr. Bush’s case, he remained skeptical about the science of global warming until near the end of his presidency and dubious about the need for concerted global action.

And his reluctance was echoed by a Congress that wanted to see clear commitments from developing countries like China.

...

President Bush was not skeptical of the "science" of global warming. He was skeptical thet the Kyoto treaty would do anything to reverse it at the same time he felt that the treaty would reverse our economy. He believed that the best way to deal with it was to find ways to adapt to a warmer climate. This is a legitimate response that liberals were not willing to engage on.

I think the main reason they were not willing to look at adapting to a warmer climate, is that they see the issue as an excuse to in act their control freak agenda. When you look at their legislation it is all about controlling commerce and our thermostats.

Me, I like warmer weather and think I can adapt to being around weather a couple of degrees warmer. If our troops can adapt to temperatures 25 degrees warmer in Iraq than in Fort Hood, Texas we should be able to live with it being a couple of degrees warmer here.