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.
Indeed, I don't know why people think that our puny presence on the planet has more impact than the big hot thing in the sky. I already noted that under President Bush, the global average temperature has not budged.
This trend has continued, as Sensing notes, quoting a scientist:
Since the mid-19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to build in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly for nearly nine years. Antarctica is getting colder.
So we're at nine years under Bush the Carbon Emitter with global temperatures static. No bad for single-handedly destroying Kyoto, eh?
It's actually funny that a Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Al Gore for his alarmist twaddle about global nonwarming. With the planet stabilizing and possibly about to enter a cooling phase, watch for the mass movement of global warming believers to crumble.
The true believers will of course deny all since they believe. Oh, and they care. What else matters? Certainly not the science. Face it, those people have issues.
On the verge of victory in Iraq and global cooling. Does being a Neanderthal American derided by the majority's belief in the conventional wisdom get any better than at this moment in time?
