[sailaway21]

ebs,
In democracies only crises get dealt with and so, if you've a concern you wish to prioritize, you must cast it in the light of crisis. It doesn't matter if the concern is GW, health care, defense spending, or drunk driving.

Within the US we have an impending problem with social security and we've known about it's arrival for something like thirty years. We haven't done much of anything about it for the simple reason that no one has been able to portray it as a crisis. Once that happens then action will take place. It might be wholly incorrect action but in a "crisis" any action is perceived to be better than inaction. We'll ignore the fact that most crises could have been avoided by early action prior to actual crisis status; that'd make too much sense but would require some type of consensus.

I personally think that the seriously large number of people who earn their living within the environmental fields has contributed to the hysteria. The old saying, follow the money, is almost always applicable. And our politicians love an issue that cannot be argued with that comes tailor made with a large constituency. After all, who is in favor of killing the planet? Have we stopped beating our wives yet? (g)

One of my red flags is the immediacy of action required. You'll have noted that the GW alarmists have met every argument stating that the data is inconclusive at best with the claim that we cannot wait for more conclusive data to be collected. That gets me thinking that somebody is selling me something I might really not want to buy without more information.

I'll be interested to hear the response you get from your MP.