February 6, 2009

On January 28, former vice-president Al Gore appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. According to the Washington Post he urged the senators “to adopt a binding carbon cap and push for a new international climate pact by the end of this year in order to avert catastrophic global warming.” 

The straight-up news story about Gore’s testimony by Juliet Eilperin stood in stark contrast with the mockery by her Post colleague Dana Millbank:

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it. What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth—and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”

It seems all but certain that, despite an already weakened economy, some Congressional leaders will push for us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on one sort of global temperature mitigation scheme or another. 

The irony is that they will do it as a flood of scientific evidence minimizing the extent and effect of human-induced global warming is breaking out of the cone of silence placed over it by the global warming alarmists and their friends in the media. It turns out that Earth’s atmosphere and climate are far more complicated than is imagined by those who attribute everything to carbon dioxide levels.

One example is Howard Ambler’s "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" at the left-leaning Huffington Post. The climate, writes Ambler, “has always changed, and always will” and the claim that climate science is settled is “the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.” The debate has hardly begun due in large measure to efforts by climate change alarmists to smother debate in the crib. Ambler writes: