Here are a collection of Global Warming links, with a brief excerpt. 

Before I do I want to note that this is becoming as contentious of an issue as any I have ever debated, and the politicking in it is sickening.

I am embroiled in a somewhat heated debate elsewhere, where one of the particulars is defending China not being included in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol that everyone is bleating about, making an argument that is the equivelant of white guilt:

But if you’re going to point the finger at how unfair it is to exempt China, they can point the finger back at us and say how unfair it is we’re able to enjoy the spoils of our unhindered growth.

If you accept that at face value, then we should be ashamed of the years of industrialization that have lead us to the technological advances we enjoy.  Because China is emerging, apparently they deserve their shot at despoiling.  Otherwise, what?  Should we trash allt he trapping sof civilization and return to a farm based economy?  I imagine many greenies would love it.

I dont buy it, particularly when China is not far behind us in total emissions and is expected to exceed is in as little as 2-3 years, or possibly 20.  If the spirit of the treaty means anything, it has to apply to reducing pollution everywhere.  The trading of credits that effective allows two countries to "pool" their polution, make no changes and still look to be compliant makes the entire treaty a dog and pony show.

That is only one reason why the Kyoto protocols are a farce, and Clinton and Bush both are right to refuse to send it to congress for ratifying.

Sad that one of the few truly bipartisan areas of agreement is still so contentious.

Since we are on Kyoto, here is George Will’s assessment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/

President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.

Next here is the shocker running around the blogosphere.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide-  Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

An earlier piece by the same author that makes much of the politics in the issue:

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=360

Climate Change: Politics and Science

Current weather and climate changes are not outside long-term normal patterns. However, the public believes otherwise due to a combination of political exploitation of science and the ways people understand nature. Western education automatically assumes a uniformitarian view of nature, which is the general concept that change is gradual over long periods of time; the corollary is that sudden or extreme change is not normal. Brief studies of any past weather period show significant changes in short periods.

Mac at QandO discusses the insidious use of the word Heretic int he GW debate.

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?entry=5374

However, more chilling than consensus being accepted as science is the political nature of the debate today. That and how skeptics who point to the bad "science" involved are being characterized as belonging to a group like holocaust deniers.

Ball says there is no compelling evidence that man is the major contributor to global warming. But saying that labels him as a "denier". And being a denier carries an ominous meaning within scientific circles today. For whatever reason, a skeptic, which all good scientists should be, is now a "denier" on this particular subject area. That’s a dangerous development, and, as he notes, has led to numerous personal attacks against him.

Opinion Journal offers some words of wisdom:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009625

Last week’s headlines about the United Nations’ latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.

Strat-Sphere makes this observation:

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/3315

One has to wonder how many times the world will let these charlatans cry “Wolf” before they learn their lesson. In fact, what we have is the scientific equivalent of the echo chamber, where models and selected data are pumped through computers with predetermined outcomes which provide some wierd emotional support to theories which cannot predict squat.

And Blue Crab summarizes it this way:

http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/05/keep-an-eye-on-the-science/

Please read the whole thing. It will begin to make you wonder what exactly is going on at the moment. Because the science does not actually appear to back up the dire policy changes that are being screeched for. Step back from the political posturing and keep an eye on the science. 

Pajamas Media has noted this anonymous offering outlining how Hillary fits into this:

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/02/hillarys_dark_energy_agenda.php

According to this anonymous writer who has worked for a decade on energy and environment policy on a national and international level, Senator Clinton’s plan for energy independence means that you will “have less, make less, and do less.” Here’s how it came to be and who’s behind it.

In the newly noted globally warming world, Hillary’s agenda is Chilling, as are the polical games surrounding this.

Noted at Newsbusters, MyPetJawa, Sister Toldjah, Gina Cobb, Don Surber, Riehl World

Trackback URI | Comments RSS