Al Gore's Glacial Influence Melting

Earlier in the month, I was going to be self-serving and reference something that buttresses the position I've taken from the beginning, but after all, it is 650 scientists making these claims--that the giant, yawning chasm between what can be called "Climate change" and "man-made global warming" is joined only by a suspension bridge of fraud. Click the link. The language is unequivocal, and at least as acerbic as me on the subject. So whatever you may think about the subject, scientific consensus doesn't get to fortify your position anymore, because it doesn't exist.

Me? I'm a man who endures verbal persecution on a daily basis for simply contesting that we've gone from "Don't litter" into an entire secular religion. Being a global warming denier on the modern campus is equated to telling the Nazis that Anne Frank is hiding in the attic as they invade Poland. I may as well be a holocaust denier, according to one of the correspondents in my local paper--all for simply asking how Halliburton managed to cause the ice age, or the global cooling that still has Greenland isolated from its lush, foresty potential.

Now, it looks like one of the uber-leftys from Arianna Huffington's site has had enough, too. I'll get out of the way, and let him have at it, since he does it so well. In part:

Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.

Ouch. And this is just one paragraph. His entire takedown is brutal, factual, and not only backed up with pointed data, it also simultaneously addresses the repulsive, totalitarian hand in the puppet that is Global Warming:

To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong.

How this essay made it to Huffington's Post, I have no idea.

-R