George Will, in typical fashion, smites those who hang on every journalistic word regarding the climate.

The painful truth, regardless of the recent Evangelical Call to Action on the climate, is that the science surrounding the existence global warming is far from unanimous.  Even if it were, there is much debate about the proximate cause of the warming.  Again, even if we knew the cause was the production of man-made greenhouse gases, it is impossible to know how a change in our behavior would impact the problem.  At some point, this becomes a matter of marginal returns and opportunity costs.  Let's assume that by spending $1 trillion to address global warming (reconfiguring our energy habits would likely cost much more), we have some impact and the earth cools a degree or two.  What is benefit, if there is one, for this reduction?  Would spending an additional trillion give us more benefit?  More importantly, is there a better way to spend that money that would allow us to help those who suffer (I am not sure who suffers, to be honest) from global warming?

These are the sorts of uncomfortable questions few of our policy makers and journalists ask.  Instead, they travel along their merry way, latching onto whatever is hot at the moment, before onto the next great crisis.