I was curious what kind of response I would get from this post. In the past, when I have proposed anything like the following to other Sebastopol groups I have been subjected to irrational Reducto Absurdo Ad Hominem Apples vs Oranges insulting attacks instead of reasoned debate.

Let me start this off by saying that I am all for completely changing how we live towards a more sustainable, holistic, organic, spiritual, thoughtful way of living. My only real point is that Global Warming is still very much a rationally debatable topic and the extreme conclusions that Gore and others have drawn are based on flawed and invalid logic with no proper considerations of the considerable levels of uncertainties and sources of error.

As a completely off-the-cuff and irrational remark let me say that I really believe that Gore has many more personal/political reasons for his crusade than some kind of altruistic save-the-planet motivation.


This should be interesting.

Below is a copy and pasted editorial from the IBD as posted on the National Center for Policy Analysis website. There are plenty plenty more where this came from.


The Chill Is On

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Climate Change: Global warming? Don't worry about it. It's over. No longer does Al Gore have to fly around the world in private jets emitting greenhouse gases to save the world from — greenhouse gases.
Read More: Global Warming
The United Nations World Meteorological Organization is reporting that global temperatures have not risen since 1998. That would be the same temperatures that models from the U.N.'s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change said would be scorching the earth into an unlivable wasteland — except for those coastal areas flooded by seas gorged with water from melting ice sheets.
Of course the IPCC spins the news.
"You should look at trends over a pretty long period," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud, "and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
His explanation for the cool spell is the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' "
If that's the case, then why can't the Pacific's El Nino current, which played a large part in the warm reading for 1998, simply been seen as a "variability" and not part of a greater warming trend? Because it doesn't fit the agenda?
Were the IPCC not dedicated to spreading fear, it would admit its climate models, on which much of the global warming madness is based, are flawed. While pandering politicians, media sycophants and Hollywood dupes desperately seeking significance have lectured us about our carbon monoxide emissions, real temperature changes measured over the past 30 years have not matched well with increases predicted by the IPCC's models.
This is not some gas-guzzler's fantasy but the finding of a credible study published last year in the International Journal of Climatology. Looking at the data, four researchers concluded "the weight of the current evidence . . . supports the conclusion" there is no agreement between the models and the observation temperatures.
That means that projections of future warming are too high, that the entire global warming assumption is suspect, and that Gore should find something more productive to do with his time.
It also proves that Howard Hayden, physics professor emeritus at the University of Connecticut, was correct in describing the machinery of the climate model-hysteria industrial complex as one that takes "garbage in" and spits "gospel out."
The global warming debate is not over. Indeed, the debate is beginning to favor the skeptics.