Here's the problem I have with the whole Global Climate Change movement. I do not deny the science for the most part. Although the East Anglia e-mails are still a bit troublesome. I'm willing to accept that the globe is getting warmer and anthropomorphic carbon emissions are contributing to it. What I'm skeptical about is the doom and gloom forecasts being made about the change in climate and the fixes (if they can be called that) proposed by the Left to curtail the heating of the Earth.

First, let's start with the panic-inducing tone of the media today. Does this type of rhetoric sound familiar?:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend **a drastic decline in food production(( – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.

Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Now, you probably recognize this as from the infamous Newsweek article warning about Global Cooling. Sure, this has been debunked and the author simply lied that meteorologists are "in almost unanimous in the view" that Global Cooling is going to be catastrophic. These same cataclysmic prophecies are being made now about the complete opposite phenomena. It's no wonder there is a lot of mistrust about Global Warming when such conflicting stories are being fed to us by the media in such a short time. Sure, it never got accepted fact by the scientific community, but the same media people crying "The Earth is Cooling" are saying "The Earth is Warming" now. It all sounds a little like Chicken Little.

And then there are the solutions proposed. They all involve more governmental regulations and stricter regulations on developed countries while letting underdeveloped countries continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere unimpeded. 24.65% of all manmade CO2 emissions come from China alone. Admittedly, the US is #2 at 16.16%. But proposals like the Kyoto Protocol made exemptions for 80% of the world (including China and India) while putting economically damaging restrictions on the US and European Union. It amounted to a global wealth redistribution program.

Domestically the solution seems to be carbon taxes (more wealth redistribution) and government subsidies for economically unfeasible renewable energy sources like wind and solar (though which big companies like GE make a huge windfall). I'm all for developing clean, effective and efficient energy. But the technology to produce them just doesn't exist yet. Wind and solar are still a long way off of meeting the power needs of the US. There is however a clean and efficient power source that we currently have the technology to develop, but the Left refuses to support it: Nuclear power. I honestly don't take anyone who wants to get us off of fossil fuels seriously if they're not willing to consider expanding our nuclear power capability. Ironically, the Left thinks it's perfectly okay for Iran to develop a nuclear program but stonewalls the development of any new nuclear power plants in our own country. That tells me that the Left is more concerned with imposing regulations on business and wealth transfers than they are about actually decreasing the carbon footprint of the US. They're merely using the Global Warming panic that they stoked in order to push their political agenda.