According the tale of little Chicken Little, if it weren't for Cocky Lockey, Foxy Loxy would have eaten everybody. If were not careful, Foxy may yet have his day.
So many questions and so little time. Proponents of anthropogenic global-warming or AGW, which is simply the theory that human processes and progress are primarily responsible for the possible warming of our planet, rather than Mother Nature, would have us believe that Chicken Little was indeed correct.
But, and this is an extremely important 'but', wouldn't it be prudent to get even remotely close to a consensus before we turn our world economy completely upside-down? Before we mortgage the future of generations yet to come, shouldn't we at least be firmly in agreement regarding global climate change and exactly what causes it?
Recently, 141 scientists, not kooks but actual scientific professionals that spend much of their day studying these things, wrote a letter to the United Nations. In this letter they use the term 'negative discovery'. Thats where every new nugget of knowledge thats found, produces several additional nuggets that need to be discovered to get a complete understanding of the topic. It seems we have this problem with AGW.
At the risk of redundancy, allow me to reiterate. These 141 educated men and women are not from Hoaxes 'R Us. They are distinguished, educated people from every corner of the globe and they have lots of initials after their names.
Then there's the game of Follow The Money. We must ask ourselves, who stands to gain from all this restrictive legislation? Now I don't personally know Al Gore, so I can't accurately speak to his character, but his name is one the charters of dozens of companies that will profit very handsomely. According the UK Telegraph, Mr. Gore stands to become the world's first Green Billionaire. Its not very hard to see where his allegiance lies.
Then there's the ClimateGate scandal. It seems some scientists in England fudged the numbers, or 'cooked the books' as they say in accounting circles. It seems the temperature data didn't exactly line up with their assumptions so it conveniently made its way to File 13. Now if this activity originated from the Southwest Montana Jesuit Global Warming Community College, it wouldn't be much, but it actually stems from activities at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, one of the foremost and respected organizations studying AGW.
My children are old enough to ask some serious questions. They can read an article about volcanoes and CO2 admissions and come up with some real bell-ringers. Maybe, just maybe, if our kids can come up with some stumpers regarding AGW, shouldn't we take some more time studying the issue before we create problems that will exist for them long after we're gone?