Climate swingers

Like other bloggers, I've been hammering Obama a lot lately--not because he's a terrible person but because he's a few teary-eyed speeches and a raised hand away from being the next leader of the free world. It's not clear whether the paid media will come out of their trance and give us any background or critical reporting. But there's one issue where, if voters could take a sort of eye test regards all three major candidates and their vision on man-made "climate change", the only letters visible would be three K's. For Kyoto.

Even the candidates with no chance like Nader and Huckabee, or almost candidates like Michael Bloomberg, are pretty much in agreement. On Monday Michelle Malkin tarred and feathered the mayor for his global carbon tax plan but in the process she reminded us of a Senate hearing on climate chaired by John McCain in 2004 that according to one participant, exhibited more bias than anything seen during the Clinton years.

According to lore McCain changed his straight talk spots in 2000 when a guy dressed in a penguin suit dogged him about the issue at campaign stops. Forget the fact that sea ice around Antarctica has recently grown (without McCain's help) the mere fact he changed suggests an ends-justify-means pandering ability of of high refinement. Or perhaps mere hubris.

I really wish my father could have lived long enough to see decision 08, where politicians are not content with the standard promise of ending poverty, injustice, disease and war, but have the stones (metaphorically) to actually promise to change the Earth's climate. That's one step beneath promising the moon, isnt' it? Jaw-dropping, at least it should be. But some think we possess the ability.

Two perfect examples of why this sort of grandiose arrogance is off the charts appeared in Monday's news. Both were summarized in a story by the Canadian National Post, one new research revealing how changes in wind circulations have more of an effect on Arctic melting than man alone, and another documenting the increase in both ice depth in the Arctic and snow cover across North America (much more here). Neither prove global cooling anymore than a heat wave or two proves warming. But they do suggest we're nowhere near a "climate emergency".

The correlation between low sun activity and large-scale wind forcing is nothing new. As mentioned here a few weeks ago, many climatologists as recently as the late 70s were predicting an ice age, not global warming. In other words, nobody really knows for sure, certainly not enough to justify handing the keys to the kingdom to pandering posturers poised to point America into risky global economic policies and large scale tax increases.

But it does seem the matter is settled politically. Regardless of who the final candidates are we'll have two populists not debating man's impact, but on which one can affect the most change the soonest with all sorts of horrible mitigations. Depressing, really, and perhaps deserving of its own slogan. I'm thinking, "drips for change", but that might be a tad harsh.