"The science about global warming has changed."

Everybody's favorite Republican Senator (Climate Change subdivision) was South Carolina's Lindsay Graham. He was one of the co-sponsors of the Cap-and-Trade legislation, meaning he had the proper bona fides from the Greens (not that any of them would ever vote for him). And he seemed to be a true believer, too; earlier this year when asked about a rival bill put forward by Dick Luger which lacked Carbon limits, he called it "half-assed".

Suddenly, he's voting against his own bill, and backing Luger's. Even worse (from the point of the Greens), he's not talking the talk any more:

"The science about global warming has changed," he noted, offhandedly. "I think they've oversold this stuff, quite frankly. I think they've been alarmist and the science is in question," Graham told reporters. "The whole movement has taken a giant step backward."

I followed up with him. "Can you clarify that statement that the science on global warming has changed?" I asked.

"The public acceptance about global warming has changed," he said.

So what made Senator Graham stray off the Reservation? The Register offers what seems the right analysis of how politicians tick:

Although the political elite is almost entirely signed up to mitigation policies, the reality is that they can't introduce them, because it means electoral suicide. Mitigation entails a world of pain - with jobs lost, higher energy costs and a lower standard of living. This appeals to a few puritans - the kind of people who mourned the end of rationing, perhaps - but not the general public. So we've seen Australia drop its emissions trading scheme, and in the US, the only Republican backer of a climate bill change sides.

Benny Peisar, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, suggests another reason for the lack of momentum. Up until about two years ago, he points out, environment ministers would regularly meet at global conferences, and make grand proclamations. They set the policy. But since then, finance ministers and prime ministers and presidents have taken control of the policy, and they've done the maths. So what pledges politicians continue to make, are ever more meaningless.

Let's see: politicians promising voters all sorts of nice-sounding things when the costs are diffuse or hidden, and then running away taking more "nuanced" positions once the voters start to see the price tag?

There's still momentum in Congress around Cap and Trade even though nobody wants it - not even Democrats. They may ram it through yet - after all, why not make the election even more of a disaster?

Actually, The Register's article is very interesting indeed, and is worth clicking through to both pages.