We Need Real Debate On Global Warming

Talk about an insider's con game! A wink and a nod to the EPA from The White House and, Voila!, the President of the United States is "required" to limit greenhouse gas emissions. These con artists think they are sooo smart. When are our few remaining honest politicians going to rise up in righteous indignation and stop these people!?

By Cal Thomas
March 30, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted a "finding" to the White House Office of Management and Budget that will force the Obama administration to decide whether to limit greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

If adopted, new laws and regulations will likely follow that have the potential to change our lifestyles and limit our freedoms. None of these laws and regulations will be preceded by debate. They will be imposed on us by fundamentalist politicians and scientists who have swallowed the Kool-Aid and declared global warming as fact; end of discussion.

Tom Brokaw hosted a Discovery Channel special called Global Warming: The New Challenge. While promoting the piece, Brokaw declared, "There is a growing consensus that global warming is real and getting worse."

Actually, there is a growing body of opinion that global warming is a fraud perpetrated by liberal politicians and their scientific acolytes who want more control over our lives.

Whenever politicians declare a crisis, or an emergency, watch out. Chances are they want to impose something before the public discovers the truth.

Any honest assessment of scientific opinion leads to the conclusion that there is significant disagreement on global warming within the scientific community among those with expertise in climatology and related fields. Yet many politicians want us to believe all of science is on board with man-made global warming and that we must act now to save the planet and ourselves from catastrophe.

You know something is up when prominent apostles of global warming, especially former Vice President and Nobel laureate Al Gore, refuse to debate or discuss the issue with any scientist who takes a contrary view. Some religious fundamentalists impose various codes of behavior and dress on their adherents and threaten expulsion (if not death) for those who fail to acquiesce to their dictates.

Is it not fundamentalist science to ignore any evidence that casts doubt on global warming? Truth is sometimes inconvenient, as Al Gore likes to say. But that cuts both ways. Truth can also be inconvenient when it shines light on propaganda. Not to allow for a full-fledged debate on global warming is censorship, a popular practice in totalitarian societies and many fundamentalist religions and cults.