On pre-emptive action

Matt Turner has an interesting point about the seeming limits of pre-emptive action:

Have you noticed how among Republicans (and British Republicans..whoops 'neo-conservatives') pre-emptive action is always correct, except when it comes to global warming? I don't see much difference in the scenario -- something terrible might happen, we're not sure exactly what and whether it will, but the risks are too great to do nothing, and history won't forgive us if it does and we did nothing.

The difference, of course, is that shouting down your opponents for being 'objectively pro-carbon dioxide' isn't anywhere near as fun.