Web Note: Although we disagree with Dr. Hansen’s characterization of Obama’s deceptive and cowardly pro-Big Pharma, pro-Big Insurance “health care reform” bill, as a ” get-involved get-tough approach,” we agree wholeheartedly that we must now pressure Obama and Corporate America to stop the “business as usual” death train we’re riding toward Climate Catastrophe.

Even more pressing than ending our crazed wars for oil and global dominance in Iraq and Afghanistan, the impending Climate Catastrophe we are facing is indeed “the Predominant Moral Issue of This Century.”

Ronnie Cummins, OCA

President Obama, finally, took a get-involved get-tough approach to negotiations on health care legislation and the arms control treaty with Russia — with success. Could this be the turn-around for what might still be a great presidency?

The predominant moral issue of the 21st century, almost surely, will be climate change, comparable to Nazism faced by Churchill in the 20th century and slavery faced by Lincoln in the 19th century. Our fossil fuel addiction, if unabated, threatens our children and grandchildren, and most species on the planet.

Yet the president, addressing climate in the State of the Union, was at his good-guy worst, leading with “I know that there are those who disagree…” with the scientific evidence. This weak entrée, almost legitimizing denialists, was predictably greeted by cheers and hoots from well-oiled coal-fired Congressmen. The president was embarrassed and his supporters cringed.

This is not the 17th century, when “beliefs” trumped science, forcing Galileo to recant his understanding of the solar system. The president should unequivocally support the climate science community, which is under politically orchestrated assault on the legitimacy of its scientific assessments. If he needs reassurance or cover, the president can ask for a prompt report from the National Academy of Sciences, established by Abraham Lincoln for advice on technical issues.

Why face the difficult truth presented by the climate science? Why not use the president’s tack: just talk about the need for clean energy and energy independence? Because that approach leads to wrong policies, ineffectual legislation larded with giveaways to special interests, such as the Waxman-Markey bill in the House and the bills being considered now in the Senate.