An Abrupt Change on Climate Change?

Is there really widespread public concern about global warming?

Exactly right. The premise--and therefore the need for scientists to fear that global warming has been oversold--can simply not be taken at face value.

I think a lot of the political change has come not from how Katrina and the other weather events during 2004-2005 directly affected people, but from how it has impacted big business (and thus affected people in a second, indirect way). The 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons hit the insurance industry very hard, and the resulting skyrocketing insurance premiums have basically shut down the real estate market in Florida (as well as hurting a lot of small-business owners). I think this has finally awakened business leaders to the fact that global warming has immediate consequences for their bottom lines, and this in turn has them putting pressure on the politicians to change course on the issue.

Looks like it's still going to be slow going:

Industry lobbyists say they expect to endure a lot of unpleasant climate hearings during this Congress, but they are not too worried about draconian legislation. They do not think the House or the Senate can pass anything too stringent, much less override a Bush veto. And they say their focus groups show that the public's eagerness to do something about global warming droops after hearing warnings of serious economic consequences.

With trillions of dollars at stake, it is reasonable to expect industry-funded ads to raise those alarms, in the vein of the "Harry and Louise" spots that helped sink President Bill Clinton's health-care plans.

"If you're a Democrat in a moderate district, this is not the kind of vote you want to take," said Myron Ebell, director of global-warming policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-funded think tank. "I think Democrats are really going to disappoint the enviros over the next two years, because all they're going to do is talk."

In fact, it's not clear that environmentalists would be all that disappointed. They believe the public is moving in their direction, as climate-friendly actions by companies such as Wal-Mart and states such as California help build pressure for a national solution. Many of them think two years of hearings could set the stage for a Waxman-style bill that a Democratic president -- or a climate-conscious Republican such as Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) -- could sign in 2009.

"If we can get some real facts into the public domain, keep educating the American people, lay down some principles about what kind of bill is acceptable and help get the next Congress ready to act, that would be a success," said Ana Unruh Cohen, a global-warming expert at the liberal Center for American Progress. "You know, Bush is still the president."

Next thing you know, Andy Revkin and policy wonk friends will be taking credit for the change, by "breaking up the logjam by discovering the 'silent middle' " (the words to be written on their Nobel Peace/chemistry Prize)

But before we ask "what caused the abrupt change in climate change?", don't we first have to verify that there is a real change in policy?

We have not even heard Bush's speech yet, for God's sake and certainly, even after we have, we can not draw any conclusions from words alone.

The words in one speech do not necessarily signify real change (or real anything, for that matter). Change is signified by actions alone.