In his Nation commentary, “The Truth on Warming,” Mark Hertsgaard examines the U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 for evidence Bush administration malfeasanse. Noting that “the report could not have been released with less fanfare: It was simply posted on the EPA’s website, three unguided links in from the homepage. If you weren’t looking for it, you’d never find it” — Hertsgaard goes on to uncover in it “crucial but awkward truths that neither George W. Bush nor his environmentalist critics want to confront.” He then concludes (amazingly):

Most greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for approximately 100 years. The upshot of this undeniable chemical fact is that no matter what remedial steps are taken today, humanity is doomed to experience however much global warming the past 100 years of human activities will generate […].

[…] Many environmentalists know it is too late to prevent global warming; the best we can do is minimize its scope. They don’t like to admit this truth, because they fear it will discourage people from making, and demanding, the personal and institutional changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is that risk.

— Wait, so some Greens are intentionally hiding or mischaracterizing certain info on global warming because they’re afraid the “people” won’t understand the ramifications of said info? Hmmm. Well, the ends justify the means, I guess, eh boys…?

But a truth does not disappear simply because it is inconvenient. Besides, a green energy future would mean more, not less, economic well-being for most Americans, while also increasing our chances of avoiding the most extreme global warming scenarios. Sometimes the truth hurts. But avoiding it will hurt even more. [my emphasis]

Of course, exactly how “a green energy future would mean more, not less, economic well-being for most Americans” is never explained — presumably because just about every economic analysis I’ve looked at shows the opposite to be true, that economic well-being would be the first casualty in any bureaucratic push to forcibly greenline America.

But why should Mr. Hertsgaard bother with such details when by simply asserting the opposite as incontrovertible fact he can quickly and confidently make entire economic scenarios that run counter to his position disappear entirely?

Well, I’m not biting, Mark. Sorry. To borrow a phrase, “a truth does not disappear simply because it is inconvenient”…

—–