The problem with the existing terms of debate for both conservatives and liberals is we always missed the logical fallacy that the environuts were passing off. Namely that the Globe is warming THEREFORE we must sign Kyoto treaty.
Bush's approach on this put the debate against signing the treaty on much better footing that the old construct. It basically says OK so if global warming is caused by the minor amounts of man's actions what possible changes can man make (given that we have hundred years of carbon release) that would reverse the trend ? Its impossible to prove even with logical fallacies that anything will reverse the trend short of a complete ban on all releases.
But we must do something cry the environuts. Yes, Bush says we will study on how best to adapt to the coming changes. And oh yes, we conservatives will need to employ you scientists who have formerly worked for the environuts to come up with recommendations as to how best to adapt.
Bush has accepted that we lost the first argument but has retreated to a firmer place and at the same time has opened the opportunity to hire away the paid scientific shills.
Good analysis. That said, if true this is a risky play. I think we've seen the same strategy with gun control fail time and again, because liberals will continue to redefine the argument. In this case, the next brainwashing for the public could very well be, "We must do something, since we know humans are causing global warming." If we lose THAT argument, where do we go from there?