Huh?

While it's not as damning as Bill Bennett's observation that people like Al Gore are complaining about global warming while it's snowing (in the Northern hemisphere, at least), Iain Murray has detected a fairly lurid example of climate-alarmist hypocrisy:

When the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, we heard repeatedly that Congress was blocking urgent action on global warming and that something had to be done NOW before it was too late. Now, with people who have argued that hearings on the matter were a waste of time in charge, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change simply states:

[W]e are optimistic that enactment of mandatory US climate action is plausible by 2008 and likely by 2010.

Huh? Where are the demands for action now? What can have changed to calm them down so much? It's almost as if this is merely a political issue to leverage for further electoral gain, not the crisis they've been banging on about.

One can be forgiven for assuming that "them" refers to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which generally takes a business-friendly, market-based approach to emissions reduction. Here's president Ellen Claussen speaking at Yale in March of 2006:

[W]e’ve seen an up-tick in Congressional interest in this issue. Granted, these proposals may not become law right away, probably not before 2008, but I believe it is only a matter of time before limits on greenhouse gas emissions are in place.

And here she is in 2004:

The United Kingdom...has set 2 goals, a near term goal of a 12.5-percent greenhouse gas emission reduction by 2012 and a longer term one for a 60-percent reduction within 50 years. The United States needs to adopt something similar....

I'm nitpicking, of course. The larger question is, if climate change alarmism truly provides effective "leverage for further electorial gain," then why on earth would these wild-eyed one-worlders ever stop "banging on about" it? You'd think they'd be emboldened to ramp up the rhetoric in hopes of bigger and better victories.

In Murray's defense, it's quite possible that he's stupid enough to be arguing in good faith. The denialists I find really disturbing are the ones who choose to present themselves to the world as blithering nitwits.