How much heat it would take to melt an ice cube the size of the Sears Tower?

-->

Up to now, I've been an agnostic on the topic of global warming.

On one hand, it makes sense that massive hydrocarbon emissions must surely have some effect on the climate. But on the other hand, the huge emissions from volcanoes, for example, seem hardly to make a dent at all.

Then there's the whole issue of long-term records of average temperature. We've only got a century or so of data and the accuracy is somewhat suspect, given the crude level of technology during the first half of that period.

But sometimes common sense is the best guide. Why not just go to the coldest parts of the planet and look around with your own eyes? You know -- if you find glaciers melting, if you find permafrost de-frosting, that would have to count for a lot, wouldn't it?

I mean, really now -- do you have any idea how much heat it would take to melt an ice cube the size of the Sears Tower? Answer: approximately a lot.

That's what Senators McCain, Clinton, Graham and Collins did and here's what they said when they were done:

Senator McCain:"We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role."

Senator Graham: "If you can go to the Native people and listen to their stories and walk away with any doubt that something's going on, I just think you're not listening."

Senator Collins: "I don't think anyone who has talked to these individuals as well as the scientists would have any doubt that [global warming] is a real and growing problem."

Senator Clinton: "I don't think there is any doubt left for anyone who actually looks at the science. There are still some holdouts, but they are fighting a losing battle. The science is overwhelming, but what is deeply concerning is that climate change is accelerating."

The best comment came from Senator Graham:

[He]couched the argument for climate change, as well as another major Alaska issue, petroleum drilling of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as a national security measure. Continued dependence on foreign fossil fuels makes America vulnerable, he said.

"The sooner we get started with alternative energy sources and recognize that fossil fuels makes us less secure as a nation, and more dangerous as a planet, the better off we'll be," Graham said.

Let's be real: the negative impact from oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will probably be far less than the damage we've already done (and continue to do) from global warming. So if Graham is putting both on the table, I'll take global warming in return for oil-drilling any day. Especially since oil-drilling is a done deal.

Summary: this is sooooooooo a natural issue for progressives, liberals and (one would think) Democrats. And smart Republicans.

Senator Clinton knows that:

Opponents who ignore evidence of humans contributing to climate change, Clinton said, are participating in a trend of turning Washington, D.C. into what she calls an "evidence-free zone."

"You just keep saying something no matter how untrue and unfactual it might be, over and over and over again, and try to drive the politics to meet your ideological or commercial agenda," she said. "That is a grave disservice to our country."

How's that for framing the opposition?