a bunch of complaints about the action proposed, then a lukewarm reference to even taking Bush's approach - voluntary reductions and soupçon of alternative energy subsidy from the vast budget surplus.

Rather than question global warming, it has been elevated to a "speculative problem", which implies it is not a real problem.

I saw no call for action in the entire editorial.

I maintain my prediction the WSJ will deny the problem, then drag their feet on any proposed action not viewed as sandbagging stronger action.

Asking the WSJ to advise on global warming is akin to having the banks decide how to regulate mortgages.