This week, the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives sent a strong message to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – they’re not concerned about climate change. The NOAA had asked Congress for permission to create a new National Climate Service within the NOAA’s own offices, but Congress decided that the agency was just fine the way it is.

At a time when Congress is fiercely debating federal spending, it would seemingly make financial sense to deny additional funding to NOAA to create their new branch. But, in a rare occurrence on Capitol Hill, the new agency wouldn’t have cost anything, and NOAA didn’t ask for a single dime to fund their new venture, completely nullifying any financial argument against this common sense proposal.

The need for such an agency is completely justified, as The Washington Post points out:

Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information.

Demand for such data is skyrocketing, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco told Congress earlier this year. Farmers are wondering when to plant. Urban planners want to know whether groundwater will stop flowing under subdivisions. Insurance companies need climate data to help them set rates.

So if it wasn’t about money, then what would stop congressional Republicans from giving the OK to the organization? To put it bluntly, they don’t want scientists 'scaring' people with their creepy climate change mumbo jumbo.

The Bush administration has decided not to take any new steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before the president leaves office, despite pressure from the Supreme Court and broad accord among senior federal officials that new regulation is appropriate now.

Earlier this week it was revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney's office deleted portions of Senate testimony to be given by Centers for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding, on the public health impacts of climate change.

Today, Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino is demanding an apology from Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) over comments she directed at Perino in regards to the climate censorship scandal.

Of all the people to jump on the Blame-Bush-Bandwagon, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now claiming that,

… global efforts to fight climate change are likely to go more smoothly once U.S. President George W. Bush leaves office early next year."

Yes, this is the same Prime Minister whose government was viewed as one of the lone instigators (along with the United States) of climate inaction at the last major round of international talks on climate change in Bali, Indonesia.

Well, everyone is teeing off on Bush's latest global warming speech—and no wonder.

I mean, it's pretty staggering when you think about it: The campaigning George W. Bush in the year 2000 was more progressive on this increasingly pressing issue than the lame duck George W. Bush in 2008.

The major news from Bush's speech, policy-wise, is that he said we'll "stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025"—or, just under two decades from now. But everybody who knows anything about this issue knows that would amount to running a completely unacceptable risk.

President Bush is set to make an announcement on climate change today.

Will it be a third strike for Bush?

Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin thinks so:

Bush's trick on climate change is to wait until others are about to embrace mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, then make a major speech about goals and process, without any specifics on measures or penaltiesHis planned speech this afternoon recalls his two earlier attempts to muddy the debate and buy time."DeSmog writer Chris Mooney is monitoring the announcement and will weigh in with his analysis later today.

UPDATE: And Strike Three, you're out Mr. President

Joe Romm at Climate Progress writes: Bush/Nero speech: "Technology, technology, blah, blah, let's fiddle until 2025

Dave Roberts at Grist writes: Same as it ever was

Andrew Revkin at the New York Times Dot Earth Blog marks up Bush's speech with his insights.