Counterfactual drivel.

When the glaciers receded at the end of the last ice age, they left a barren, scarred wasteland. Centuries passed by as new plant growth emerged and various species found the warming planet more hospitable. Fire, increased rainfall, further warming and rising CO2 displaced these “young” forests with plant species more suitable to the changing climate. In time the “older” growth was taken over by “preditory” or “opportunistic” tree species. This evolution played itself out in several stages until what we call “old growth” forests emerged relatively recently in the last millennium.

Forest management in the 20th century, such as fire supression, literally backfired. Our levees in New Orleans failed to hold back the flood waters and canals across the Gulf states damaged the wetlands' natural filtering system. This all demonstrates human folly – our conceit that experts can (or should) maintain complex environments just as we find them today. Managing CO2 levels however would do real damage to our freedom and prosperity.

Global warming alarmism exhibits the same human folloy, but it has taken on a quasi religious tone and has been hijacked by the most zealous converts. So-called deniers are treated as heretics who are now mocked, sequestered from major news outlets and are routinley denounced, punished and “excommunicated” through the funding of grants and access to peer-reviewed journals (according to leaked emails).

These are not the actions of scientists in the pursuit of truth, but ideologues in pursuit power and prestige as well as a fatal conceit, that regular folks cannot know what's in their best interest and must be governed by their self-anointed superiors. This philosophical premise lies at the heart of both ancient slavery and modern totalitarianism. Its only cure is to understand the philosophy that supports liberty and freedom and the wisdom and courage to protect our birthright.

Let me ask you one simple question: given that CO2 levels have been at least 5x what they are today–this is disputed by no one, and I first read it in the New York Times–why are global warming cultists claiming that disaster will result now, when it did not then?

On the contrary, plants grew larger, and longer, and large animals evolved to eat them.

And if you want to talk about “coastline” BS, then that is a question of cost/benefit isn't it? The cost to protect coastlines, and the costs of wrecking the global economy–and in the process damaging democratic instiutions and free market autonomy–versus the benefits of longer growing seasons across more of Earth's surface and the benefits of continued unrestricted carbon fuel use to lift poor people out of poverty, so less of them live short miserable lives.

There is no need to prove that enough CO2 pumped into the atmosphere will heat the Earth up, just look at Venus. The current global warming debate is about whether and how much it's happening now with the pathetically small levels of CO2 now in Da Air, which is counterproductive. There is also no debate that CO2 helps plants grow, they breathe it, ask any greenhouse operator why they pump it in, or why even Galore calls it Greenhouse Gas. The whole GW debate has become a political program for redistribution of wealth globally using it as a banner, which is so sad since the longterm problem of global starvation can't be avoided much longer, and once billions are starving a year no redistribution of anything will stop it.

Pump Pump Pump That CO2 and Eat More Dino Steak! (my new slogan

It is also “too bad” that people claiming “refute” things always seem to do it by:

A-Not providing actual proofs—they simply assert such things.

B-Conduct what has been called “argument by link”—a generally fallacious method of argumentation where specific points are not addressed–merely asserted, by highlighting a link with the CLAIM that it is indeed concrete refutation.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as a list of scientists by state.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/rel…

It's too bad that Frontpage has fallen into the climate change denial camp that pervades the right–Any and all of Pter Sinclair's videos on Youtube will refute this denial with hard scientific –and logical–evidence.