Let me repeat my basic position:
One, I'm not convinced that the temperatures today are higher over a long enough period to be considered the highest ever rather than a blip in the long run.
Two, I'm not convinced that people are at fault for any rise even if there is a significant rise in temperatures this century.
And three, and this is the most important part, I think the idea that we must cripple economic growth in order to slow any increase in temperatures is sheer stupidity. Coping with change is cheaper and more effective than trying to stem the incoming tide.
So what does the first sentence of this article about the latest pronouncemnt on the subject coming out of France say? (And all the radio stories I've hear thus far, too.)
Scientists from 113 countries issued a landmark report Friday saying they have little doubt global warming is caused by man, and predicting that hotter temperatures and rises in sea level will "continue for centuries" no matter how much humans control their pollution.
And later, this:
The scientists said global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity, a phrase that translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that it is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame.
Well, that settles it. We cause global warming with little doubt about it.
But wait, there's another sentence in that story we might want to consider:
A top U.S. government scientist, Susan Solomon, said "there can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
Wait a minute! So humans are responsible for the increase in greenhouse gasses? I don't doubt that. I never have. We are the only ones burning fossil fuel, eh? Silly to deny that.
What I doubt is that we know that greenhouse gasses are responsible for the warming that we can measure--if the measurements are significant (so why were global temperatures constant during the Bush administration? And why did they decrease from 1940 to 1970?).
Is the report saying that greenhouse gasses are the major reason for the globe to be warming up? That isn't clear at all from the stories I've heard. The report just seems to be saying that--duh--we produce carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels. The global warming advocates just seem to be letting us make the leap in logic that if we are the ones burning oil, then logically we must be warming the planet.
When the source of 99.9% of our planet's warmth comes from the big hot thing up in the sky, I am hesitant, to say the least, that we should cripple our economy by engineering a massive reduction in carbon dioxide production.
Wake me when the global warmers advocate more nuclear power plants as a partial solution to the problem of greenhouse gas production. Then I'll know they are serious about thinking this is a crisis rather than a means to ensuring funding for their pet projects or their anti-capitalism goals. Neal Boortz has a good column about his skepticism.
Still, I guess we can all be grateful that we didn't follow the advice of some scientists in the early 1970s to spread black soot over the polar caps to absorb sunlight in order to reverse that looming ice age they predicted (remember that 1940-1970 temperature drop). Thank goodness scientists are no longer the drooling, moronic, panic-mongers they were back then!
Oh, and also, don't just gloss over that little bit that says that temperatures will rise for centuries no matter what we do. I mean, it's science after all.
UPDATE: Oh, and I forgot to mention one important thing that I believe is crucial before we embark on a program to combat global warming: just what is the ideal planetary temperature?
I mean, if we're going to move heaven and earth to stop the planet's temperature from rising, what is our goal? Do we stop it at whatever level it reaches in a century or two hence? Do we roll it back to the level of a century ago? Or to today's temperature? Surely the scientists who assure us they know that being a bit warmer is bad can tell us what temperature is good?
I mean, they could tell us what the ideal temperature should be if this global warming issue was based on science and not merely a post-God faith that persecutes heresy from their one true universal faith.
UPDATE: Mark Steyn has some thoughts as well:
If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.
Could happen. Who knows?
But that's the point: Who knows? You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.
That's a new one on me. No wonder the North Koreans are hanging tough in the six-party talks! Climate scientists predict Pyongyang will outstrip our economy in a mere 93 years! So any day now we'll see North Korea accelerate so fast that we'll all have joy brigades!
And Instapundit, though he thinks moving from carbon fuels to others is wise, isn't convinced about the global warming case:
Do I "believe in " global warming? In the sense that the world seems to be warmer now than in recent history, yes. The more apocalyptic scenarios seem to me to remain unproven, but certainly cause for concern.
Do I believe that global warming is anthropogenic? Not so clear. Plausible, but still far from certain.
The global warmers like to pretend the case is closed by belittling those who haven't bought their story hook, line, and sinker. If their solutions weren't all so predictably leftist, I might think they have a point.
Seriously, Al Gore and the rest of his global warming crowd are so out of it that they should try out their plans in Second Life before they inflict them on a real world of people who will be harmed by their lousy grasp of economics and reality.
