WASHINGTON -- With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate change meeting. Its organizers had hoped it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices. . . .
. . . Were their science as unassailable as they insist it is, and were the consensus as broad as they say it is, and were they as brave as they claim to be, they would not be "goaded" into intellectual corruption. Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.
Skeptics about the shrill certitudes concerning catastrophic man made warming are skeptical because climate change is constant: From millennia before the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1300), through the Little Ice Age (1500 to 1850), and for millennia hence, climate change is always a 100 percent certainty. Skeptics doubt that the scientists' models, which cannot explain the present, infallibly map the distant future.
I spent years studying natural sciences and I have a degree in biology. From the time Al Gore came out with his inconvenient "documentary" I have been skeptical of his claims because the only thing constant about our climate is change. George Will of Real Clear Politics does a fantastic job of expressing what I, and many other scientifically minded individual, have been thinking.
On the political front, his article is clear and concise. On the scientific front, one can find an abundance of evidence that global warming is not occurring at an alarming rate to include articles by the New York Times about stable temperatures and evidence that polar bears, the global warming mascot, are increasing in numbers. One could correctly argue that the New York Times is not politically neutral, but the NYT's political bias is generally in favor of the global warming alarmist, so an NYT article that publish facts that contradict the hysteria of global warming should spur thought even among GW adherents.
Image sourced from ClimateProgress.org
