Two of my favorites appeared this week. The first suggests moving to a global policy of allowing couples to have just one child. Sure, you may love your kids, but their birth is causing the Earth to warm. At some point, they will surely be the death of us! Now, there might be two feet of snow outside your house, but trust them: The little tikes are warming the planet.

My other favorite involves your diet. It seems that becoming a vegan will slow global warming. All that meat and dairy you’ve been eating has been contributing to a warmer planet, and this warming has contributed to lots of snow and cold temperatures lately. Wait, is that right? I’d better think it over while enjoying a milk shake.

The global warming cult really fans the flames of climate change doubts themselves. We can accept the rationale behind more efficient cars, but when you tell people they shouldn’t have two children and should avoid a burger at McDonald’s, you start to look like a fool.

WIth the holidays quickly approaching, it makes me wonder if there will be a push to convince people not to decorate for Christmas. After all, those strands of Christmas lights and illuminated Santas could be the death of us.

Global warming or an impending ice age? Scientists have flip-flopped over the last few decades.

Is global warming real? I’m not sure any more. If you asked me a year or two ago, I would have tended to agree that there was something to it. The facts didn’t seem to be fully understood, but intuitively, it seemed to be something that deserved careful consideration. Of course, the research and its interpretation seemed to be hijacked by the political left, which put findings on a pedestal and would shout down anyone who questioned the results. If you know anything about science, you know how important it is to have findings constantly questioned through empirical research, then evaluated by the larger scientific community.

Many climatologists seem more inclined to jump on the global warming than take time to question findings and risk being ostracized by their colleagues and the political left. In light of climategate, which showed that high-level researches might have suppressed data and altered findings, a need to reexamine the validity of these studies is necessary. If history is any guide, it’s better to start this process sooner than later. If you don’t believe me, just look at the history of climate research. In the 1970′s the scientific community overwhelmingly supported the idea that the Earth was cooling, and that another ice age was approaching.

Climate researchers will tell you that you need to look at the long-term data when studying climate change, not just the last few years. If that’s the case, then how can two groups of distinguished scientists come up with such different results in a historically short period of time? The fact that there is disagreement doesn’t end the argument, since disagreement exists in many areas of science. The disturbing aspect is the group-think which characterizes a great deal of climate research.

Is global warming real? Is the Earth getting warmer? It’s certainly possible, and I wouldn’t be shocked if it were true. The problem is that we have found out recently that research was corrupted at a very high level. I would have more faith in the findings if dissenting voices weren’t silenced, findings were reevaluated objectively, and those responsible for doctoring data were ostracized by the scientific community and removed from their positions. Only then can we hope to discover some semblance of truth.

At times, climate change supporters seem less like a group of academics and more like a cult. If research was in fact being tampered with, this has huge policy implications. You would think that our elected officials would want to know the truth, but that’s not the case. California Senator Barbara Boxer doesn’t seem to mind that she might have been duped by scientists. At least, that’s what she seems to be saying:

“You call it ‘Climategate’; I call it ‘E-mail-theft-gate,’” she said during a committee meeting. “Whatever it is, the main issue is, Are we facing global warming or are we not? I’m looking at these e-mails, that, even though they were stolen, are now out in the public.”

She then added…

“We may well have a hearing on this, we may not. We may have a briefing for senators, we may not,” Boxer said. “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.

“This is a crime,” Boxer said.

It seems that Barbara Boxer isn’t particularly concerned about the scientific community faking results for political gain, although she is concerned that the wrong-doing was exposed. My favorite part of her comments is when she says they, “could have well been coordinated.” What I’m wondering is who could have supposedly coordinated this e-mail theft? Could it be time for the “vast right-wing conspiracy” nonsense to resurface once again?

Barbara Boxer and her colleagues will make every attempt to avoid a hearing and suppress any information that contradicts theories of climate change. If this doesn’t work, we will see them attempt to twist the truth by placing the focus on how the information was received to distract the public from what was found. What are they trying to hide?

I’ve always had a problem with the defensive nature of those who study global warming. There seems to be a reluctance to encourage further debate, and a rush to demonize anyone who questions the findings. No matter how you stand on global warming, questioning research is a healthy part of the scientific process which should be encouraged, not stopped in its tracks. Maybe there is nothing to “Climategate,” but it should be investigated.