It's relatively easy to distinguish authentic, card-carrying eco-wackos from sane citizens, even those citizens concerned about the possibility of global warming. Upon encountering a suspected eco-wacko – someone running around in circles of diminishing radii, screaming something incoherent about the earth going to hell in a wheelbarrow if mankind doesn't quit burning fossil fuels by Tuesday of next week – apply this simple test: Keeping at a safe distance – he might turn out to be an ordinary citizen, frightened out of his tree by the media elite, but he might also be a dangerous eco-wacko – ask him to sign a petition urging an immediate shift from fossil fuels to nuclear power as a solution to the global-warming problem.

If he is really concerned about global warming, allegedly caused by man's burning of fossil fuels, if he's basically sane and can appreciate the fact that nuclear power is the only viable alternative to coal, oil and natural gas, and if he quits circling long enough to sign – even if reluctantly – the "Go Nuclear" petition, then he is not an eco-wacko. If, on the other hand, he gets even more hysterical and not only refuses to sign the "Go Nuclear" petition but perhaps even tries to choke you for suggesting it, then you have definitely found an authentic, card-carrying eco-wacko.

For the true eco-wacko, mankind's emissions of carbon dioxide are just more spotted owls. (You may recall the admission of an eco-wacko poohbah that it was fortuitous they had found the spotted owl in that forest because, if they hadn't, they would have had to "invent" an endangered species to "protect"). He doesn't believe for a minute that he is causing the planet to fry – he just wants you to believe you are.

Eco-wackos don't really care what excuse they use to force the return of you soccer moms to pre choo-choo train 18th-century rural America. If you somehow got yourself a nuclear-powered SUV – which emitted no greenhouse gases whatsoever – they would just have to invent some other excuse to shut you down. It's you and your increasing dominance over Mother Nature that sets them off, causing them to run in circles, screaming incoherently. So, naturally, they regard nuclear power – a uniquely man-made solution – to be no solution to their problem at all. Quite the contrary. By their lights, your going nuclear would make their problem with what you're doing, infinitely worse.

Please note that in order to apply this sure-fire test to suspected eco-wackos, you do not, yourself, need to be an environmentally concerned citizen. You don't have to care a fig about the environment. Nor do you need to believe that we must cut back on our fossil fuel use, else we fry the planet. Nor is it even necessary that you be willing to sign the "Go Nuclear" petition, yourself. After all, if you, yourself, don't accept the premise of the Kyoto Protocols, then you may not feel compelled to do anything, much less "Go Nuclear."

Now, President Bush, to his everlasting credit, has courageously rejected the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocols – which would have required us to reduce our use of coal, oil and natural gas in all energy-use sectors by about 30 percent by 2012 – causing the globalists, greenies and eco-wackos of the media elite and European Union to all go berserk. Furthermore, Dubya has said that he not only wants Americans to maintain our current standard of living, but that he wants to increase energy supplies so that future generations of Americans will have even better standards of living. Consequently, President Bush has announced that we will carefully re-evaluate the nuclear power option and, if it turns out to be necessary to drastically cut back on fossil fuel use, we will 'Go Nuclear.' Go nuclear? You can see why the eco-wackos went berserk.

President Bush also told the United Nations this week what they could do with their proposal to subvert the constitutional right of Americans to "keep and bear arms." Who says it doesn't make any difference who wins an election? Does anyone think Al Gore – as president – would have rejected the Kyoto Protocols, which he negotiated and signed on our behalf? Does anyone think that Al Gore would have told the United Nations to take a hike on gun control?

It is difficult to overstate the importance of these nationalistic decisions by President Bush. Of course, every time President Bush takes a stand in defense of our national sovereignty or makes a decision on the basis of the constitutional rights and well being of Americans, he faces a blast of criticism from the media elite and globalists.

Al Gore – the darling of the media elite – is a professed globalist. The Clinton-Gore administration was chock full of globalists. Globalist Strobe Talbot, who took leave from the media elite to serve as deputy secretary of state during the Clinton-Gore administrations, prophesized on many occasions that the 21st century would see the end of the "nation-state." Quoth the globalists:

"One Folk! One Reich! One Dictatorship by the Proletariat!"

(Wait a minute. Maybe that was Hitler? Or was it Lenin?)

Many Clinton-Gore poohbahs eagerly looked forward to the day when we could all get together, speak Esperanto and have huge Mazola parties in the streets of Sri Lanka, Palestine, Kosovo and Northern Ireland. Sad to say, many of their globalist acolytes are still hiding in various closets at the EPA and elsewhere in the Bush-Cheney administration. While the Europeans, including the Brits, were busily surrendering their national sovereignty to the European Union, the Clinton-Gore globalists did their best to give our sovereignty away to the United Nations and its various sub-organs, such as the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Clinton-Gore voluntarily subjected the disposition of 34 tonnes of Plutonium – obtained from dismantling about 10,000 of our excess nukes – to oversight by the IAEA Non-Proliferation Treaty regime. Clinton-Gore also irreversibly made a number of our nuke-related production facilities subject to the full IAEA-NPT safeguards and physical-protection regime. Consequently, none of these materials or facilities can ever again be used in our national defense. Of course, when the United States originally helped establish the IAEA back in 1951 – as an agency to provide the rest of the world the benefits of nuclear energy – we never dreamed that we would ever have a president like Bill Clinton who would entrust the IAEA with matters so vital to U.S. national security.

Similarly, when President Bush, the elder, made the United States a party in 1992 to the UNFCCC, who dreamed that we would almost immediately have a vice president who would negotiate and sign and unconstitutionally commit us to the 1997 Kyoto Protocols, entrusting that international body with our very economic security?

The Clinton-Gore subjugation of the disposition of American nukes and nuke facilities to oversight by an international agency – although unprecedented – didn't require Senate ratification, and the only way Congress could have stopped the subjugation would have been to deny the Clinton-Gore request for the authority and the funds to carry out that subjugation. Clintion-Gore got around that little problem by never asking for authorization or appropriations. Yet an irreversible commitment has been made on our behalf.

Fortunately, the Kyoto Protocols of the UNFCCC did require Senate ratification and the Senate promptly warned Clinton-Gore in no uncertain terms (98-0) that they would never ratify the terms accepted by Al Gore. President Clinton just as promptly announced that we would abide by the Kyoto Protocols anyway.

What had Algore and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wrought that the U.S. Senate refused to even consider?

The IPCC – established in 1988 – is the U.N. advisory panel that was responsible for recommending the establishment, in 1992, of the UNFCCC in the first place. The IPCC stated mission is "to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." The operative term is "human-induced."

The IPCC has three working groups and a task force. Working Group I assesses the scientific work – done by others – on the earth's ever changing climate. Working Group II assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change and develops options for dealing with the consequences. Working Group III assesses options for limiting "human" greenhouse-gas emissions and otherwise mitigating climate change. The Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories keeps track – country by country – of who's putting what into the air and how much of it.

It follows that the purpose of the UNFCCC – to which the United States is a party – is to force its members to mitigate the harmful "human-induced climate change" uncovered by the IPCC. Hence, in Kyoto, the UNFCCC adopted the greenhouse-gas limitation provisions recommended by the IPCC. Greenhouse gases inventoried include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). Some of these greenhouse gases – both naturally occurring and manmade – are also pollutants, but the post-Kyoto emphasis has been on carbon dioxide, which, of course, is not a pollutant.

Now, most of the global-warming brouhaha in the media has swirled about the various IPCC assessments of the work of other scientists. Those scientists did not usually have the IPCC agenda in mind when they did their work and many of them charge that their work has since either been mischaracterized or misinterpreted to suit the political purposes of the IPCC. Time after time, the IPCC has stated authoritatively that there is a consensus among scientists that (1) the surface of the planet is getting warmer, (2) that increased greenhouse-gas concentrations are causing it, and (3) that man is largely responsible for the increases. And, time after time, the aggrieved scientists immediately reply that there is no consensus, whatever, among scientists about any of that.

The IPCC authoritative statements make the front page in print and lead-off the network evening news and cause citizens to be concerned. The anguished wails of the scientists, whose work has been mischaracterized or misinterpreted, is relegated to "letters to the editors" columns. The question naturally arises, are the mischaracterizations deliberate? That is, is the IPCC infested by eco-wackos?

Well, let's apply the eco-wacko test to IPCC Working Group III, which is supposed to be assessing options for limiting greenhouse-gas emissions. When the IPCC weenies find such an option, they are supposed to go rushing into the UNFCCC front office yelling something like "Eureka!". So, why don't we get some weenies from the UNFCCC sister agency, the IAEA, to come in and brief the IPCC Working Group III weenies on the nuclear-power option. Talk about limiting greenhouse gases – a nuclear power plant not only doesn't emit any carbon dioxide, it doesn't emit any amount of any of the greenhouse gases being kept track of by the UNFCC National Greenhouse Gases Inventories Program.

You would think the IPCC weenies – upon hearing of this magical man-made solution to their problems – would immediately urge every UNFCCC party to shift from fossil fuels to nuclear power as the solution to the global-warming problem. Hosanna! There ought to be dancing in the streets in Bonn, Germany, home of the UNFCC, where the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention are meeting later this month.

But No! The IPCC weenies won't even let – literally – the IAEA weenies from their sister U.N. agency in the door to present their man-made solution (Go Nuclear) to the global-warming problem. They don't want UNFCCC parties to know that a solution to human-induced global warming is at hand.

So far as we know, the IPCC weenies haven't actually tried to choke the IAEA weenies, but it appears that we have definitely spotted a gaggle of authentic card-carrying eco-wackos at the IPCC. Bear that in mind the next time you see or read one of the IPCC pronouncements.