A guest submission from Steve Feinstein

The Global Warming debate rages on, hotter than ever. (Sorry.) Each side is deeply entrenched in its respective position, unyielding, more convinced than ever of the correctness of their argument.

Nonetheless, there remains enough real, substantial doubt about so-called “Global Warming” that no thinking, analytical individual should just automatically, unquestioningly accept it as ‘true.’

From the UK’s Express:

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about Global Warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC’s hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.


So why the virtual worship by liberals at the religious altar of Global Warming?

Global Warming serves several liberal political purposes:

1. It indicts Big Business as Villain to the World. Liberals hate Big Business, which they see as a major cause of greed, the source of unfair wealth accumulation, the “Oppressor of the Common Man” (whatever the heck that means, but they say and/or imply that often), and the purveyor of negative/destructive/harmful products and services into the world. Since Big Business is seen by liberals as a mostly Conservative/Republican endeavor, calling it all “bad” in one fell swoop is very efficient for the Über-Left.

2. The Kyoto-type agreements seek to re-distribute “ill-gotten” Western (mostly U.S.) capitalistic wealth to “deserving” under-achieving 2nd- and 3rd-world countries by means of fees and penalties. The UN, whose world-view mirrors the Left’s very nicely and is particularly anti-U.S., leads the climate-change brigade and spearheads the Kyoto/World Conference on Climate Change activities.

3. The liberal U.S. MSM loves Global Warming and all its tenets, because Global Warming is, at its core, anti-Republican. The entire issue is a way the MSM can openly campaign against Republicans while maintaining an air of “plausible deniability” about their political leanings.

“We’re not favoring Democrats over Republicans; we’re simply reporting scientific facts.” That’s the implication, and it’s a clever feint, which most people miss altogether.

It’s quite possible—likely, even—that some Global Warming proponents don’t realize that they’re engaged in very specific, focused anti-Republican/Conservative activities. For many of the “great unwashed” Warming activists, it’s just a great cause, a feel-good endeavor to save the planet, the right thing to do, the actions of concerned Earth inhabitants. Fair enough. Some people no doubt take their Warming position for well-intentioned reasons, even if those reasons are utterly bereft of solid, unequivocal scientific backing.

But the same is not true of hard-core liberal political partisans and their MSM allies. For them, their pro-Warming, anti-“denier” position is a carefully calculated political strategy, designed to persuade the casual, semi-informed voter into thinking that Republicans are indifferent towards (or worse: in favor of) the demise of the planet. Global Warming hysteria as espoused by most liberal Democrats and the MSM in the U.S. is mostly a political ploy designed to manufacture votes. Nothing more.

RCI (Russia, China, India) combined are by far the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluters, and none of them is subject to or going to agree to any Kyoto-like “agreements.” It’s all a farce of the highest order.

There is so much Global Warming “data” that is in real dispute that to accept the notion of Global Warming without any question is evidence of, at best, simple-mindedness and at worst, disingenuous, ulterior motives. But the absence of healthy, scientifically-based skepticism is the common thread that connects all the Green/Liberal/Leftist/Anti-U.S groups, and therefore, it renders their absolutist position meaningless—and exposes liberal political and media operatives for what they are.

Comments