Global warming, errrr… cooling, yeah, that’s the ticket!

Two more articles heralding the upcoming change from global warming hype to global cooling hype… and as always, please remember that this is the FIFTH TIME in the last 112 years that the media has hyped climate change into something catastrophic. I say the fifth because four are documented and complete, and we’re beginning the fifth one now. The transition has already started as articles begin to question how serious global warming is, and a few articles have begun to say that it is, in fact, a good thing. At the same time, a slight buzz about the dangers of global cooling has already begun, as noted in other posts in this category.

Debra J. Saunders at the San Francisco Chronicle notes that the UN is quite relaxed about the greenhouse-gas emissions of countries other than the United States.

I understand the social justice argument: America has produced more industrial greenhouse gases than any other nation, hence Americans should have to cut back more than other countries. But who knew in 1910 that global warming would be an issue?

“The few who did know about it thought it was a good thing,” noted the Cato Institute’s Pat Michaels. “And when global surface temperature declined from 1945 through the mid-1970s, the feeling was one of absolute alarm. The world was going to have a food crisis. The shipping lanes in the North Atlantic were cluttered with ice.”

Remember global cooling? That’s what the - all bow - scientists warned about 30 years ago. Now bygone Americans are to blame for not foreseeing science’s end-of-the-world scenario, global warming.

Unlike Ban, I know many scientists who don’t think the science is conclusive as to whether global warming is caused by man. But if the tipping point is near, you’d think Ban would talk as tough on China as he does with President Bush. According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China’s coal-fired plants are increasing their emissions annually by double the total emissions growth of all the world’s industrialized economies combined. China’s about to be Hertz, and Ban’s focused on Avis.

“Given the emissions growth rate of China, if the United States drops its emissions 25 percent over the next 20 years, it simply won’t be noticed,” Cato’s Michaels noted. “Everyone who’s looked at this knows that.” Everyone, perhaps except the U.N. secretary-general.

Greenhouse gases will have the same effect, whether they emanate from San Francisco or Shanghai. But politics, not science, keep the focus on Bush, not Beijing.

You see, Bush had the audacity to refuse to support Kyoto. If he had been all lip service, like President Bill Clinton - if Bush he had signed the treaty, but not asked the Senate to ratify it, while U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions rose to 14 percent higher than 1990 levels when he left office - then the vaunted international community would approve.

Science is supposed to be about results, but global warming is about belief. Clinton’s good because he said he believed. If you say you believe, you don’t have to deliver.

Kevin Whitaker at NetX News says Crying “climate change” no longer convincing:

Men in high places clamor alarmism to the populace, who in the hustle of modern living, accept what is reported by those with a voice as “undeniable” and “consensus” without taking time to evaluate opinions no less forceful in their argument, but less publicized.

Some of these men who offer alternative and convincing viewpoints on climate change include Dr. John R. Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, a lead author on the infamous 2001 IPCC report and a scientist of many awards and distinctions; and Lord Christopher Monckton, a policy advisor to previous Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and a respected contemporary philosopher. Much of the evidence discussed here is largely a result of their efforts.