Global Warming: The Left Proposes An Inquisition for Skeptics

By October 12, 2006General

Thanks again to Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and a guy who’s as close as you get in the Senate to a climate expert, for this item. Apparently an Al Gore ally has written about global warming skeptics in a lefty publication saying, “”When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Ouch! Are they talking ’bout us???

Here’s a link to a very good dissenting view, and here’s a link to a piece by Streiff, another of our blog friends, posted over on RedState on “The Great Disappointment.”

Apparently when the left starts losing a grip on the debate, they figure it’s time to end it.

Join the discussion 4 Comments

  • C. Bruce Richardson Jr. says:

    Global climate change is not seriously disputed. Climate is always changing. That is the one thing about climate that doesn’t change.

    There has probably been a general warming since the end of the last major ice age. The warming is what melted the ice that once covered a significant portion of North America. We can see that the ice isn’t there any more so there must have been warming. And it isn’t likely to have been caused by humans.

    There have been shorter periods of both warming and cooling since that time. The last cooler period was the Little Ice Age that ended around 1850. The rapid warming that ended the Little Ice Age isn’t likely to have been caused by humans either.

    Whether carbon dioxide emissions by humans are a significant contributing factor in climate change is very much disputed. I am of the opinion that it is not. Other folks think that it is. There is only a consensus among those scientists who are of the same opinion. Opinions to the contrary are discounted or attacked viciously. That is an odd sort of consensus.

    It would be irresponsible for officials to act based on opinion rather than scientific fact. Consensus of opinion is not a substitute for fact. What if “policy makers” had acted to stem the global cooling that was the popular “crisis” of the 1970’s? I hardly think that officials that refuse to base policy on hysteria should be “investigated for corruption.”

  • T. MacDonald says:

    “Are they talking ’bout us.”

    How can you be so tribal about your viewpoint, as if everyone who reads your work belongs to your group?

  • Laurel Hartford says:

    No, not unless you are intentionaly continuing to pollute despite having information that it it harmful Technology has been what it has been and thirty years ago, we didn’t know any beter.

    Now, however, we do. Global warming is not seriously disputed in any scientific circles. What is being bickered over is the amount that humans have contributed, and what we should do about it.

    Therefore, policy makers who continue to resist doing the responsible thing and leading us in a constructive direction should be investigated for corruption, if not malicious negligence or worse.

  • MartinE says:

    Are you nuts? You can pretend this isn’t an issue if you want. It’s called burying your head in the sand. Leading manufacturing companies look forward and plan for change instead of denying it to protect today’s profits. There is great opportunity here for those who look forward. Ignorant stances like this will result in US manufacturing once again following foreign innovation.