Perspective on the Invective: Global Warming Firebrands Must Contend With Inconvenient Facts

Pretend you're playing a game of Red Rover with 100,000 of your closest friends or rushing the field after a big Michigan football win. Now envision 38 people trying to stop either crowd in their mad dash. How do you think they'd do?

Why this exercise? Turns out carbon dioxide, the alleged culprit behind global warming and such annoying additions to today's daily language as "carbon footprint" and "carbon neutral", makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere.

But this carbon is supposedly trapping heat near the Earth that would otherwise disperse into space right? That's what they say, but think about it and tell me if that doesn't sound ridiculous. There's a lot of climate scientists who think so too.

Just last month they held the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York, where hundreds of climate scientists skeptical of the hysteria gathered to compare evidence that we're barking up the wrong tree.

The founder of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, has actually suggested suing Al Gore and his travelers for duping the public, specifically by advocating the purchase of carbon credits (from a company he is a part of).

Wisconsin's very own Reid Bryson, known as the father of scientific climatology, has also come out strongly against those who take man-made global warming as religion. Bryson says: “...there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up a long time.”

I'm not a climate scientist, but it seems to me that until people are as familiar with statistics like the 38 parts per 100,000 as they are with stories about castaway polar bears, we can't honestly say "the debate is over".