I've posted before that I am a skeptic not just of "global warming" but also, and more importantly, of the debate behind the topic.  Now, two Canadian scientists are trying to shed more light on both problems.  At its core, you have disingenuous people pushing theories that are not fact.  The media finds a drama to sell and pushes it.  Politicians see a way to get ahead, and we are off. 

One technique of the pro-warming group is to assert that "all credible scientists agree" on global warming and its source.  This paints dissenters as fringe wackos.  But, it is not true.  Also, what if there is a scientific explanation for the warming, such as a change in the sun?  If that is true, then the planet is warming but it is not by human hands.  That is, essentially, what the scientists in this article are explaining.  It is worth a look.

Why does any of this matter?  Well, two reasons.  First, we cannot base public policy--which has serious economic and behavioral ramifications--on the same grounds as choosing the prom queen:  popularity with the 'in' crowd.  Second, combating global warming by shutting down cars and factories costs society wealth--either in lost production (and therefore real people's jobs) or in clean up costs.  That wealth could be used to combat actual--not theoretical--problems in this world:  AIDS, malaria, or cancer.  For a sense of the cost of Kyoto versus the cost of malaria, look at this page (Kyoto) and this page (malaria).  What a tragedy.  As Tim Patterson, of Carleton University in Ottawa, notes: 

"All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa...We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."

Read on HERE.

Thomas More