More Than The Temperature Is Falling

Here's a new story about the rapidly bursting bubble that is the man-made global warming schtick. First, Hot Air reports on a story from Politico:

Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

While the new Obama administration promises aggressive, forward-thinking environmental policies, Weather Channel co-founder Joseph D’Aleo and other scientists are organizing lobbying efforts to take aim at the cap-and-trade bill that Democrats plan to unveil in January. ….

The National Academy of Sciences and most major scientific bodies agree that global warming is caused by man-made carbon emissions. But a small, growing number of scientists, including D’Aleo, are questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.

Armed with statistics from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Center, D’Aleo reported in the 2009 Old Farmer’s Almanac that the U.S. annual mean temperature has fluctuated for decades and has only risen 0.21 degrees since 1930 — which he says is caused by fluctuating solar activity levels and ocean temperatures, not carbon emissions.

Data from the same source shows that during five of the past seven decades, including this one, average U.S. temperatures have gone down. And the almanac predicted that the next year will see a period of cooling.

Here's their analysis:

The global-warming movement exists to provide cover for statists who demand central control over energy production. That’s an inconvenient truth that has begun to emerge as global temperatures fail to meet expectations of increase. Rather than admit that more research is needed, global-warming activists have increased the hysterical tone of their efforts, demanding immediate action and giving dire predictions of catastrophe without it.

Their cause did not get helped by the Goddard Institute’s mishandling of data. Not only did they mistakenly use the wrong month’s data, they failed to catch the error before publication. In the controversy that erupted, Goddard — the primary source for the most hysterical global-warming advocates — admitted that they don’t do any independent verification of the data they receive, making their conclusions all but worthless.

Over 31,000 scientists have now signed onto the Global Warming Petition Project, demanding more skepticism and a return to scientific inquiry into climate change rather than political propaganda. They face an uphill battle in convincing the beneficiaries of research dollars from Washington to risk their funding by acting like scientists.

This is, obviously, great news to those of us who love freedom and don't buy the hype that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming (or any other catastrophic climate change). Again, the problem isn't with taking care of the natural world around us. To the contrary, I believe strongly that we are called to do just that. Where I draw the line, though, is when caring for the environment crosses over into hysteria based not on fact but on emotion, and when humanity takes the hit. Gateway Pundit adds the following helpful facts to put things in perspective:

The oceans have been cooling since 2003.
Sea ice is growing at the fastest pace on record.
There are growing fears of a coming freeze worse than the ice age.
And, for the second straight year the Earth is, in fact, cooling... not warming.

Now this... Science Daily reported that a detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.
Ya think?

However, Democrats remain unmoved by scientific facts and are planning crippling cap-and-trade legislation that could cost the country close to $7 trillion dollars and 3 million manufacturing jobs.

These cap-and-trade schemes hatched by liberals in our government have been proven to fail every time they're tried, and it cannot possibly be any different with the one our next Congress is almost certain to push on us. Why do they continue to try this scheme? Hot Air pegged it above - it is pushed by people who believe the federal government should hold all the power to control energy, because the control of energy means the control of people. For example, without the ability to buy cheap gas for their cars, people can't travel to their jobs as easily, and may be forced to take public transportation (which is, coincidentally, controlled by the government). Without affordable independent transportation, commerce comes to a screeching halt, as trucks, trains, and other methods of hauling cargo run into the ground. When commerce halts, prices shoot up and jobs are lost, only adding to the economic difficulty. See how it's all rolled together? It starts with the state controlling everything. And, by the way, that's socialism. Exactly what Obama promised.

While most Americans favor doing something to take care of the environment, I doubt they favor legislation that will cause energy prices to skyrocket, which is exactly what will happen. Note the difference in these two hypothetical poll questions:

1. Do you support legislation that would protect the environment by requiring lower emissions from automobiles?
2. Do you support legislation that would require lower emissions from automobiles at the cost of making cars more expensive and dangerous, and raising energy prices?

Quite a different answer, huh? But that's exactly the difference in the question that is asked on all of those polls that show people 'demanding' action on global warming. Of course everyone wants to take care of the environment. But, what about if they realized that doing so would also make the cars they drive more expensive and dangerous? Somehow, I don't think most people would go for that, but that is the situation. Enviro-nitwits can't have their cake and eat it, too, but they're sure trying hard to do just that!

The problem is that there are way too many Republicans who will side with the Democrats on this one (McCain being one of the most prominent), and that could really hurt the minority opposition that will represent the majority of the American people.

Isn't it ironic that, at the very moment when the scientific community is lining up in opposition to economically disastrous global warming legislation because the science just doesn't support it, the liberal Left finally has the majority to push that legislation through?

If the stakes weren't so high, it would be amusing. Unfortunately, they are.

There's my two cents.