"Weapons of Mass Destruction" and "Climate Change"

    Before I begin, I should mention that I'm not a Republican or Democrat.  I didn't vote, and I'll still complain because it's my right to.  I was disappointed that our only (real) choices were McCain and Obama.  I would have been happier with Ron Paul against Hillary Clinton, but it's over now, and we have Obama coming into office in January, and I wish him luck.  His good oratory skills will definitely help him rationalize any unpopular decisions, which he is bound to do at some point.
    I'll now start with Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which Bush used as reason to invade Iraq.  Saddam Hussein was not a terrorist.  He was not a radical Islamist, and in fact protected the Christian minority.  Since 2003 there has been a slow genocide of these same Christians he once protected.  Before the Ba'ath Party, back when Iraq was a monarchy, Baghdad was a fairly safe and flourishing city, with Muslims, Christians, and Jews all living together without any serious problems.  The Jews mostly went to Israel after its creation, and the Christians have only started leaving in large numbers in the last five years.  My point is that Saddam Hussein, although ruthless against the idea of Kurdish Independance or Shi'ite majority taking over, he kept the country together.
    Bush went into Iraq with seemingly good intentions.  He wanted to stop a ruthless dictator from obtaining "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that he may have had, but was still not a threat to America, either way.  Of course we all know it was about oil.  It's the reason "why" he wanted to remove a dictator which we have a problem with.  Politicians today simply cannot tell the full truth, for many different reasons depending on the situation.  It was Orwell who once wrote, "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    Now I will move on to Obama, where I see a parallel between Bush's "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and Obama's "Climate Change."  I hate to criticize him before he even comes into office, but I feel that people need this warning.  Like Bush's supposed intentions of removing a dictator, Obama wants to change the way we obtain energy.  It's a good thing to reduce pollution, so obviously his intentions seem good.  The reason "why" is what I have a problem with.  Like Bush's Iraqi-oil in the name of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", Obama will be able to control energy in the name of "Climate Change," and both of their intentions seem good, at the time.
    I was once a believer that the world is warming and humanity is doomed if we don't stop our greenhouse gas emmisions.  Then I began studying climate change professionally, and found that, even if the earth's temperature rose a couple degrees over the past hundred years, that is insignificant compared to changes of ten or twenty degrees in a few decades, which have happened naturally during the earth's long history.  A couple degrees change over a hundred years time is extremely stable, and there is no reason to call it a "crisis" which is definitely "man-made," without real proof, enough to convince someone skeptical.
    Like I said, I think it's a good thing to reduce pollution sometimes, just like it's a good thing to remove a dictator sometimes.  It's the reason "why" that bothers me.  Obama has a lot of good characteristics, and he'll probably end up to be an okay president, with some inevitable disappointment, but I feel  the "Man-Made Climate Change" threat will be remembered in a similar way to Saddam's supposed "Weapons of Mass Destruction."