We're entering a period of increased global warming hysteria designed to scare boomers retiring in Florida into supporting wacky liberal policy to forestall rising see levels which would put America's least majestic land mass under inches of seawater. Since this would throw a serious crimp in many senior's golf and early bird dinner special plans, they're happy to throw the financial burden of carbon neutral policies on top of prescription drugs, Medicare, and social security.

Before I move on to my main points regarding global warming, let me remind all those fear crazed codgers that Soylent Green is still people, and the trade imbalance with China, a country that has trouble producing enough food to feed its population will require creative solutions.

Back to the news, or what passes for news in the PI which today reports:

Report on climate to include 'smoking gun' on global warming

Which is interesting since:

"The NASA study also discovered the sun has been undergoing a period of particularly strong solar output since the late 1970s, which correlates with warming temperatures after a 30-year global cooling period." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm

What? you mean the sun (look it up Seattle, it's the big ball of fire you see North of Mount Rainer when the monsoon season ends), which heats the Earth, doesn't have a Honeywell thermostat which keeps it's output at a constant 70 degrees? Could it be that sometimes more of the Sun's energy hits the Earth than at other times? If only we had an example of this variation in temperature caused by the amount of Solar Radiation hitting the Earth--oh wait, we do, we call that variation SEASONS.

Now stay with me, and I'll type slowly for those of you who are new to the concept: In summer more radiation hits the hemisphere pointed toward the sun and it's warmer, in winter, less energy arrives and it's colder.

So far we have two facts in evidence 1. More Sun=warmer, 2. In the past 30 years, there has been more Sun.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and draw a conclusion from the facts in evidence: The Sun is causing the slight amount of cyclical global warming.

Clearly we should do something about the Sun. Perhaps Congressional hearings? Censure? I'm not a parlimentatian, but can you Impeach the Sun? If so what celestial body would serve out it's term?

But, you say, Global Warming is still the biggest threat to humanity. Not so fast Al, in fact, Russian scientists predict a minor cooling period toward the end of this century:

"Basing their conclusions on patterns in solar cycles that have corresponded with past global temperature changes, the Russian scientists conclude the upcoming decade will be the last one of relative warmth until well after the year 2100. They released their findings in an Interfax news release on November 22.

Climatologists generally agree the Little Ice Age lasted from roughly the fourteenth through the nineteenth centuries. The prolonged cold temperatures shortened growing seasons and corresponded with periods of shrinking human populations." http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/08/25/globalcooling.shtml

So, it appears as though the science isn't conclusive, the debate isn't over, and one is forced to question the agenda of those pushing the man made global warming scenario. In fact, the 1/2 degree increase in global temperatures that one can attribute to increased greenhouse gasses (man made or natural), may actually help maintain arable land as the planet cools over the next 100 years.

With that in mind, coupled with the fact that Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 290,258,231,863 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.003010085 °C by the year 2050. http://www.junkscience.com/ I am amazed that the global warming lobby gets any attention at all. Shouldn't we be busy dismantling government, instead of creating new intrusions into average citizen's everyday lives?

Cross posted at http://crappiblog.blogspot.com/2007/01/report-on-climate-to-include-smoking.html#links