Blinding You With "Science"--UPDATE
The media love the global warming panic for all the obvious reasons: It sells papers, it makes Al Gore look smart, and the proposed solution to climate change is a direct assault on capitalism.
The media and the loony lefties who want to cripple our economy also love never having to debate the issue. As soon as you ask a question about "global warming," Senate Democrats and editorial page editors declate "the debate is over!" And since it's over, there's no reason to explain why, for example, the earth hasn't evidenced any measurable warming AT ALL over the past five years.
C'mon, people! Al Gore says we've got to get Manhattan under water by the year 2100! Five years of no warming is NOT going to get the job done!
The fact is, most global warming alarmists simply aren't capable of debating the issue. They will point to evidence that supports their panic--which is fine--but they blindly ignore any and all facts that question it. No wonder there's a "consensus." The University of Alabama under George Wallace had the same "consensus" about college admissions, too.
The three things that global warming alarmists will not discuss:
1--How lousy we are at predicting our future climate.
2--How little human activity impacts that future.
3--How expensive the alarmists' proposals are, and how little impact they are likely to have on the global climate.
If you're a Chicken Little climate kook, I challenge you to do just one thing: Read the following articles by George Will Mark Steyn and the Wall Street Journal . They're not scientific abstracts, they don't try to blind you with obscure debates about surface temperature vs. atmospheric temperature, etc.
Instead, they ask common sense questions that any rational person should answer before suggesting that we intentionally lower our GDP and put at least 5 million people out of work.
That's right: 5 million jobless Americans to drive the global temperature down 0.5 degrees over the next hundred years. Maybe. If we're lucky. And that temperature may go up or down anyway. We just don't know. Are you really willing to fire 5 million people over that?
This is the conversation about global warming the media NEVER covers: the cost. The "natural truth" is that, if the price of this climate crap shoot were a few billion a year, a few bucks on the monthly energy bill, etc. etc., there would be no debate. Just about everyone would say "better safe than sorry."
But it's not. Because human beings generate just 2% or so of greenhouse gases, we have to have dramatic reductions to have any measurable impact at all. The Kyoto number is a 5% decline in economic activity. We can't just lower future emissions (which America is already doing, thank you) or hold steady. We have to reduce our emissions 20 years from now back to what they were nearly 20 years ago. That means power plants have to CLOSE. Industries must shut down. Cars must be parked....all while our population and economy are growing.
The only way to get there--assuming we don't invent a machine that magically transforms carbon into car-powering fuel cells--is to either get rid of people or jobs. 100 million workers, less 5%, is 5 million non-productive, non-energy-consuming, non-emitting citizens.
We're not sure there's a problem. We're not sure we're causing the problem. We're not sure we can fix the problem, and you're willing to bet 5 million jobs on it?
There's a word for this position that even the blondest of weatherbabes can understand: Insane.
UPDATE: Here's another excellent overview of the global warming scare from MIT's Richard Lindzen.