The Tribune-Review Editorial Board VS Reality. Guess Who Wins?

From today's Trib, there were a number of criticisms of last night's State of the Union Address. Among them:

A fealty to the theology that is “climate change” has become one of myriad refuges for a president seeking a political legacy at the expense of reality — social, economic and scientific.

 And here's what the president said last night:

Look, if anybody still wants to dispute the science around climate change, have at it. You’ll be pretty lonely, because you’ll be debating our military, most of America’s business leaders, the majority of the American people, almost the entire scientific community, and 200 nations around the world who agree it’s a problem and intend to solve it. [Links added.]

A question for my friends on the braintrust: Given all that (and let's be honest, I could have linked to any number of other sources for information on each) why are you insisting on ignoring/denying the reality of the science?

Especially given what Obama said next:

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.

What were you saying, again?  About a "fealty to a theology" that's held as true at the expense of reality?

Another embarrassment for the Tribune-Review - for the Braintrust for writing this and for the entire staff to collect a paycheck because of it.