If Morano is popular, it's because some simply don't want to face the facts, and couldn't possibly be convinced, and need some talking points to spout.

If you check Morano's site, you'll see he admits in a bland way that "the President is refering to global warming." He doesn't concede that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. He doesn't even accept that the  Republican establishment has in 2007 taken on "the serious challenge of global climate change." (Not because they intend to do anything about it as long as Bush is around, but simply because they don't want to look like total hypocrites when, as in California, they decide to move seriously later.)

Amazing that he can make a living this way.  

I've also made some comments to Boxer.  The blog should be clearly noted as a "minority" one, all other minority content should be labelled as such (not solely in the url)(for now, they just laod under the main committee banner), and white papers (his climate science one, for example) and the like that name Inhofe as the chairman should be pulled down or dated.

The U.S. Senate has no interest in seeing any climate change legislation or treaty come their way.  The Byrd-Hagel Resolution of July 25, 1997 that said Kyoto was unacceptable passed 95-0.  That is zero nay votes.

The climate change issue ranks up there with abortion and social security as something to steer clear of.

Would you tell a constituent that the U.S. has to trash its economy but China, India, and developing nations get a free pass?  Their opponent in an election is going to make sure this factoid is not forgotten.

Now the question everyone should be asking is why business is suddenly interested in climate change, and climate gets mentioned in the State of the Union address.

Business "demands action".  The only off-the-shelf technology available today is nuclear energy.  Nuclear reduces imports of middle east oil, and solves a big nat'l security problem.  Nuclear is clean and emits no CO2 (and no SO2, mercury, dioxins, etc.).

So there you have it.  With nuclear, the U.S. reduces dependence on foreign oil imports, improves nat'l security, provides clean energy, and puts environmental activists in a real bind.  

If climate change is really as important as activists say, they have to rollover on nuclear.  If activists block nuclear, then climate change maybe wasn't important in the first place.

Business looks environmentally correct, gets a stable energy supply (that happens to be clean), and gets to bash activists.