The phrase "global warming" has pleasant connotations. I prefer the word "overheating," because it more accurately captures the serious consequences. From today's New York Times, by science writer William Falk: "A BLAST FROM THE PAST To find out whether human activities are changing the atmosphere, scientists took ice cores from ancient glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Bubbles of air trapped in the ice provided a pristine sampling of the atmosphere going back 650,000 years. The study, published last month in the journal Science, found that the level of carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases that can warm the planet, is now 27 percent higher than at any previous time. The level is even far higher now than it was in periods when the climate was much warmer and North America was largely tropical. Climatologists said the ice cores left no doubt that the burning of fossil fuels is altering the atmosphere in a substantial and unprecedented way. THE DAY AFTER TODAY One of the more alarming possible consequences of global warming appears to be already under way. The rapid melting of the Arctic and Greenland ice caps, a new study finds, is causing freshwater to flood into the North Atlantic. That infusion of icy water appears to be deflecting the northward flow of the warming Gulf Stream, which moderates winter temperatures for Europe and the northeastern United States. The flow of the Gulf Stream has been reduced by 30 percent since 1957, the National Oceanography Center in Britain found." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/opinion/30falk.html?th&emc=th It's not a "theory" any more. It's happening, no matter how many science reports the President's head-in-the-sand followers censor. Pretty soon we're going to see European governments down our throats, as we threaten their climate via our continually increasing (not decreasing) greenhouse gas emissions. Without the Gulf Stream, London's climate would be similar to Labrador's. This month's Sierra magazine contains very disturbing photographs showing glacial melting, as well as actual pages from science reports with big sections crossed out by the Bush Administration, to make global overheating seem less real. If current trends continue, there will be no more arctic ice--and no more polar bears--by 2050. Bush's answer: drill in the Arctic for more oil. He thinks you can change reality by wishing it away. The right answer: make us the world leader in green technology. Instead, we're letting Japan and Europe lead the way (hybrid cars, high-speed rail, and windmills, etc). All we need is a modest commitment to research, perhaps funded by a gas tax (which the vast majority of economists, including conservatives ones, agree is the single fastest way to get us off oil, since it makes other technologies relatively cheaper while encouraging us to use less oil). As an oil man, Bush had the credibility to do this, but he threw the chance away. Idiocy. Mariner.