Charles M.,

Thanks for posting about this. Debilitating fear is a terrible thing. I remember days of thinking nothing but gloom and doom after "The Day After" aired.

I do think we're seeing more of this. Teen suicide rates are rising, and part of that is surely attributable to the gloomy picture of the future shown by the media. I wish I could just say "make it go away", but it still needs to be there -- because our political leadership, and our media, is still not making the connection between the future being shown and our current policies. McCain, while in front of the GOP on this issue, still advocates only a 50% cut in emissions by 2050; Obama has to be watched to ensure he doesn't commit more gaffs like his initial support for liquified coal as a solution to energy security. Even the news media still segregates environmental news -- statements by the Saudi oil minister that OPEC might increase production are universally reported in the economic sections as good news, even though it's bad news for the future.

We do need balance. Some global warming is inevitable -- there's a lag of 30-50 years between carbon emissions and the full environmental impact we see from them -- but we have to believe that if we change our habits now, the future will be livable. I see from your other articles that you're not going to be readily swayed by arguments about the reality of global warming, so I won't argue -- with you -- about that -- but I do agree that a universally gloomy picture of the future can be harmful; and if it is presented as the way the future WILL be, it engenders fatalism, which in this case will probably be fatal.

George Will is an interesting and thoughtful man. For his essential Madisonian outlook, I have nothing but respect.

On the issue of global warming, however, I have to ask what rock he's been under. Unlike the "Our Cooling Planet" fad he referenced, the "excitement" about global warming has sound scientific underpinnings. Mr. Will speaks as if all he's seen are the headlines, and as if he hasn't read scientific journals for the last ten years.

I also must provide a counterpoint to his argument against John McCain's admittedly flippant point about climate change legislation. He is correct to point out that there IS a downside to the legislation; if we are wrong about global warming, then attempts to curb it now will unnecessarily slow economic growth and hurt the pocketbooks and lifestyles of millions if not billions of people. ON THE OTHER HAND -- if Mr. Will is wrong about global warming, and we do NOT attempt to curb it now, it is very possible that we will be unnecessarily causing our own extinction.

McCain's remark was indeed flippant; but addressing global warming now is still the more prudent choice.

For a more extreme possibility than the Royal Society is willing to discuss, check out Scientific American's Impact from the Deep.

Reid is probably wrong to attribute the fires to global warming; but ModernDay Publius is wrong to imply that global warming is alarmist propaganda meant to advance a particular social agenda.

Probably worth reading The Royal Society's Climate change controversies: a simple guide; especially the section "Negative effects overstated".