Rush Limbaugh Wants You To Talk About Global Warming The Progressive Bloggers Union is encouraging me to write about Global Warming today, and I'm assuming they want me to take the Bush Administration to task for not doing anything about global warming. Here's why I'm not going to do that. On my drive home from Buffalo the other day, I listened to Rush Limbaugh, and his entire broadcast focused on global warming. While there is practically consensus in the scientific community on climate change, making this the cornerstone of our criticism of the Bush Administration's environmental policy is sheer folly. The reason I say this is because science isn't the bible, and the whole notion of science "proving" anything is antithetical to the scientific method. Unlike dogma, science is always interested in testing a hypothesis, and incorporating new variables into the equation. This is why, despite mounds of evidence, it took decades to establish a causal link between smoking and cancer. Instead of focusing on global warming, the environmental movement would be better off focusing on emissions, clean air, and clean water. These are the environmental issues most likely to persuade Americans that this administration isn't representing them. But don't take my word for it, ask the nation's oldest and largest environmental group: The Bush administration has systematically undermined environmental laws, weakened pollution and public safety standards, cut funding for enforcement agencies and programs, and nominated agency and judicial appointees that are openly hostile to environmental and public health protections. Despite stating on his website, "When government and landowners and conservationists and others work together, we can make dramatic progress in preserving the beauty and the quality of our environment,"(www.georgewbush.com/Environment) George W. Bush has compiled one of the worst environmental records of any President in the history of the United States. Read It: Of course those who can craft a compelling argument against global warming should do so--especially climatologists--but it seems to me the most expedient arguments are those that hit home with everyday people--the gutting of Nixon's Clean Air and Water Acts, loosened restrictions on mercury pollution, hog lots, etc.