Ecco the dolphin got caught in the tuna nets...

Ok, sadly he did not, and probably roams free in Al Gore's sinus cavities.
However, the increasing pitch of the environmentalist hysteria proceeding from those vasty depths is by no means decreased on account of the blockage...

All joking aside, let's look at the issue here.

Breaking down the argument, we have two basic options.
Either a) the climate on a global scale is changing significantly, or b) it is not.
Let's choose a), although not all scientists agree with that statement.

We have two more choices now.
Either a) this climate change is normal, or b) it is abnormal.
Let's choose b) although we're now getting to growing numbers of scientists that disagree.
My personal, very unprofessional opinion is that it is normal, the earth has always gone through up and down cycles of heat and cold, and need I bring forth the 'Vikings settling Greenland' reminder? But we'll set aside my own views for the moment.

We have yet two more choices.
Either a) this abnormal climate change has been brought about by humans, or b) other causes
There are very good arguments that the sun is actually the cause of warming temperatures, based on the fact that the other planets seem to be warming up too. (some scientists set this aside as a coincidence. And facts that contradict their previously determined theories would necessarily be coincidence, wouldn't they? Put it down to random error, like in freshman physics lab)
But we'll set these issues aside, and choose a). We're still on track with the loudest voices coming out of Washington, Europe, (except for a brilliant interview with the President of Czechoslovakia that I will post here shortly) and with the snide editors of online magazines like Wired.com. And who wants to endure their scorn? I mean honestly...

So, diligently setting aside objections at every point like good minions, without asking tricky questions with logic or historical perspectives (and who needs history? We have vitriolic message boards on facebook groups with misspelled titles!) we've arrived at the conclusion that humans are causing drastic climate change.

This could still be true, by the way, based on our process here. All the objections raised along the way could be specious, or even malicious. Distractions made by evil people who want to burn Mother Earth with cigarette butts they fling from their SUVs.

And we still even have stubborn holdouts, who think that climate change will actually be GOOD for humans. More carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures leading to a longer growing season and more healthy plant-life. They obviously haven't been working on reducing their carbon footprint, or they would know how much money it takes to cover the guilt of their emissions.

And now we come to two of the most ancient and common motives in the world.
Money, and power. (or, for you politicians, "oxygen" and "water")

How might these two suspiciously capitalist topics be related to the fight to save the planet from ignorant people who don't see that an endangered rodent is infinitely more valuable than a baby?

Think it over for a moment. A global problem takes more than any one country to fight. It takes the world's money, the world's commitment. Obviously greedy, individualistic nations can never be expected to solve the problem. They're too busy trying to preserve outdated notions like national identities or their economies. Or in the case of developing nations, develop an economy in the first place. No, to solve this problem it is clear that we must turn to a global organization, conveniently represented by the UN. In fact, the UN has graciously offered to tackle the problem of human-induced catastrophic climate change. All it asks for in return is a global tax to fund the initiative. Not so much to ask for, right? Our politicians contribute a portion of the money our (polluting, remember) taxpayers would just spend on something terrible like Remingtons, meat, or Tahoes anyway.

Granted, this means drastically increasing the UN's leverage at the expense of our sovereignty, but what's a little freedom in exchange for security? That's been our gambit since 9/11, right?

-Oak