Yesterday, President Clinton, still basking in the glow of his status as elder statesman of the Democratic Party, warned that GOP polices were the cause of increased hurricane activity and that he and Al Gore were right about global warming. He was? Clinton’s Vice President, long known for his “environmentalism” has also claimed that global warming is the cause of increased hurricane activity, a premise not supported by science.

Has there been a general rise in temperatures over the last few decades, probably, but are those temperature increases a result of “global warming” brought about by increased Carbon Dioxide emissions, or are they caused by a documented increased solar activity? If there is a general increase in the Earth’s average temperatures it would not be a new phenomenon, the Earth has gone through many cycles of uncharacteristically hot and cold cycles, throughout the eons. To contend now that this cycle is solely brought about by man is ludicrous. It’s even more ludicrous to argue that global warming is a result of George Bush, who has been in office only 5 years. Exactly who was it that was president for the previous eight years?

Assuming, just for the sake of assumption that CO2 emissions are the sole cause of global temperature increase, which is laughable, no one can seriously argue that such a phenomena only began in January of 2001 when Bush and company took power, nor can we argue that the US I solely responsible. Yes the US does account for a sizeable percentage (24%) of the so-called greenhouse emissions on this planet, but that share is directly proportional to America’s economic productivity and industrial output, which accounts for nearly 1/3rd of the world’s industrial capacity. By contrast, nations like China and India also contribute greatly to greenhouse emissions, at a rate disproportionate to their industrial productivity. China for example accounts for over 13% of global emissions, but its industrial output is equal to only 3% of global output. In other words, for every product (and/or service) produced in the United States, this country produces such goods and services far more efficiently and at lower costs to the environment than our many of our industrial rivals.

Should the US reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, yes, not so much to appease environmental concerns but to lessen our dependence on ruthless tyrannical regimes in the Middle East and Latin America. Are CO2 emissions harmful in some way to the environment? Probably on some scale, but in no way approaching the levels envisioned by the anti-capitalists. Leftists frequently criticize others for ignoring the scientific evidence they site in support of global warming, these same pro-science leftists, however, ignore data sets demonstrating global warming’s extra-terrestrial origins (ie, the Sun).

Environmentalists, leftists and pro-Kyoto advocates, cannot easily hide their contempt for economic progress and their disdain for capitalism, such sentiment was clearly evident in the lopsided Kyoto protocol, which few signatories have lived up to. The protocol could hardly be mistaken for an environmental treaty as it excused pollution, so long as it wasn’t from the United States and imposed unrealistic goals designed solely to hamper growth.

While Clinton and Gore may gain media attention by preaching pseudo-science, it is no substitute for the truth. Dire warnings of super hurricanes like Katrina are misleading considering the fact that Katrina ranks 27th in terms of the most deadly Atlantic hurricanes, but then again such a strategy is shrewd, after all scare tactics have long been a gold mine for the left, especially when playing to an uneducated electorate.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/12/D8I6VEOO4.html