December 2007

Global Neutral

by Julie Walsh on December 26, 2007

in Blog

Christmas is over but, for those who are not emotionally invested in the global warming theory, there is some post-Christmas cheer. Mankind is not headed for extinction, after all. The North Pole will not melt and the Atlantic Ocean will not flood New York City.

Temperatures across the world are not – repeat, not – increasing as they should if the global warming theory is correct. Temperatures in 2007 are statistically the same as they were in 2006, and every year since 2001.

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 

New York will sue to challenge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's blocking of efforts by major states to reduce vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA Goes Off Track

by Julie Walsh on December 26, 2007

in Blog

The Environmental Protection Agency, if it tries to regulate global-warming carbon dioxide from motor-vehicle exhaust as it appears about to do, could kneecap the U.S. economy with new regulations on factories, farms and ordinary buildings.

If you have a relative who is worried about global warming, it's hard to know what to buy him this Christmas.

Earlier this month Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson refused to briefly answer a question about global warming at a debate in Iowa, suggesting 30 seconds wasn't long enough to lay out his views on the issue. During a recent telephone interview with Radio Iowa, Thompson was given an unlimited amount of time to talk about global warming. He said it was a problem.

Secular Fundamentalists

by Julie Walsh on December 26, 2007

in Blog

var requestedWidth = 0;
if(requestedWidth > 0){ document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.width = requestedWidth + “px”; document.getElementById(‘articleViewerGroup’).style.margin = “0px 0px 10px 10px”; }You don't have to be religious to qualify as a fundamentalist. You can be Al Gore, the messiah figure for the global warming cult, whose followers truly believe their gospel of imminent extermination in a Noah-like flood, if we don't immediately change our carbon polluting ways.
One of the traits of a cult is its refusal to consider any evidence that might disprove the faith. And so it is doubtful the global warming cultists will be moved by 400 scientists, many of whom, according to the Washington Times, "are current or former members of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Mr. Gore for publicizing a climate crisis."

Some disease are plaguing camels, and the obvious culprit is… -Global warming… you got it!

I read this story in the Guardian, and I had a déjà vu experience, remember this spring when some virus was plaguing the bee population in North America, causing them to die in large numbers. We did not really know that it was a virus until this summer, but several someone's suggested global warming was behind that too, until we knew it was the virus.

Now however, global warming is killing camels, cause microbes, viruses, and bacteria does not mutate, as we all know. At least global warming will be the culprit until some microbiologists take a look at the thing.

Oil Is Not the Enemy

by Julie Walsh on December 21, 2007

From The Corner on National Review Online

With all due respect to Robert Zubrin and the splendid Cliff May, their argument against oil seems to be based on a syllogism: Islamists produce oil, Islamists are bad, therefore oil is bad. The fact is that 80% of our oil comes from non-islamist sources. Our top sources for petroleum are Canada and Mexico. We even import more oil from Africa than from the Middle East. The rest of the world isn't going to switch away from the most cost-effective source of transportation energy just because we choose something different. So by switching to methanol (which would also require massive amounts of land) we cut off our nose to spite our face. The Islamists will keep getting their funding from other nations, just like they do now, and we'll be less resilient in the face of their attacks because we'll be paying more for a less efficient form of energy (and we'll therefore be less competetive with, eg, China as well). It's ludicrous. If you really want to reduce our imports and lower the world price, campaign for an end to the silly restrictions that keep us from utilizing our vast reserves of oil and gas that are locked away in ANWR, the Rockies and the Outer Continental Shelf. The American consumer is not our enemy.

The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-too-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers: