As for Newt, a picture says a thousand words. This one speaks volumes.

Barack Obama

Democrats are criticizing Barack Obama for cutting money for heating assistance in half. In the President’s defense, is this money really necessary? After all, according to them, global warming is gradually raising the temperature of the Earth. If this trend continues, as many liberals say it will, we would hardly need to have the same level of heating assistance.

Of course, many liberals would rightly point out that we have faced one of the coldest winters in recent history. I wouldn’t disagree with this point, but it is going to warm up a lot, isn’t it?

There are already complaints about the new regulation relating to the increased cost of new automobiles and the reluctance to do anything to improve global warming, since many find the science inconclusive. As for the cost, it could be substantial. New car prices may rise up to $1,000. That’s certainly nothing to sneeze at, but this extra cost will certainly pay for itself in reduced fuel costs. Besides, once the car companies begin making more fuel efficient cars on a large scale, the economies of scale will likely kick in and bring this upfront increase down.

As for those who oppose the more stringent standards based on their skepticism of global warming, I offer this advice: Put that aside for a moment. Whatever you think about global warming, there is no doubt that our nation faces a major problem: Our reliance on foreign oil. I really don’t like that we get so much of our oil from the Middle East and other hostile countries. One of America’s chief goals should be to become energy independent. The Obama administration recently stated that more drilling will be allowed off the U.S. coast. The increase isn’t as expansive as I’d like, but it’s a step in the right direction to increase our domestic supply. By also increasing our fuel efficiency standards, we will be decreasing our domestic demand. If domestic supply continues to rise while domestic demand continues to drop, then we will be heading in the right direction.

Of course, you might still disagree with me. If you do, then feel free to continue opposing these new standards while driving inefficient vehicles. I’m sure the terrorists who live in Middle Eastern countries who benefit from your decision will thank you.

We could say that there is a ghost lurking. To paraphrase Karl Marx there is a ghost running through the streets of Copenhagen. And I think that ghost is silent, somewhere in this room, amongst us. Coming through the corridors and underneath. And that ghost is a terrible ghost and nobody wants to name him or her. It’s capitalism. Capitalism is that ghost. Nobody I don’t think wants to name it. Capitalism. I’ve also been struck by some of the signs outside this conference. One sign in particular that reads, “Don’t change the climate … change the system!” I particularly liked that one and would add to that by saying that by changing the system, we could save the planet. The destructive model of capitalism is eradicating life.

You’re not going to believe this, but I agree with some of what Hugo Chavez said. I agree that there is in fact a “ghost in the room,” but we disagree on its name. The ghost isn’t capitalism, it’s socialism, but like Chavez said, no one wants to name it, since doing so would undermine the purpose of the climate summit.

For many, their liberal brand of environmentalism and socialist tendencies fit in perfectly with the climate debate. Blame corporations for all that is wrong with the world, over-regulate them, extract money from the tresuries of these capitalist countries, then use it to “help” developing nations who have far fewer responsibilities for protecting the planet from global warming. It’s really a macro version of what you see progressives trying to do through the tax code. Raise taxes on productive citizens, then use it to subsidize those who lack ambition. It’s the same thing on a global scale, using climate change as a well-developed cover.

If you are truly concerned about global warming, I hope you are equally concerned about how many of your fellow supporters are hell-bent on demonizing industrialized nations and the capitalist system. By the way, isn’t it funny how capitalism is evil, yet they have no qualms about asking for our money?

Dennis Miller makes an excellent point in this video. If the individuals attending the climate summit in Copenhagen really cared about global warming, why wouldn’t they make it a teleconference? Cancel the private jets, limos, and other energy sapping activities. Of course, they would lose their vacation and glitzy surroundings, but at least the whole world wouldn’t have to know that they are hypocrites.

If the organizers of the summit decide to take this advice and have a teleconference next time, it will be in good hands. Before he was a friend of the global warming industry, Al Gore was the self-proclaimed creator of the internet. Who better to handle such a daunting task?

While speaking at a press conference at the climate summit in Copenhagen, a film-maker asked him some questions he wasn’t comfortable answering. The proper thing to do would have been to answer his questions, seeing as though it was a press conference, then use scientific findings to support his claims. Instead of taking this scholarly high road, Professor Schneider’s associates had armed U.N. guards remove the questioner from the premises and ordered his cameraman to stop filming. Here is the exchange caught on tape:

For those who believe global warming is the problem alarmists claim it to be, here is just one reason why people are skeptical. In light of the questions raised by climategate, researchers prefer to bully those asking questions rather than welcome a dialog about the merits of the research. It makes it look like there is something to hide, and contributes to global warming researchers looking more like a cult than a scientific community.

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.

Do you think John will point this sort of thing out to fellow attendees once he gets there? I wouldn’t count on it.

As these scientists, protesters, and interested parties are watching, I hope they are also on the lookout for hypocrisy. A lot of people claim to care about global warming and want to others to make changes in their lifestyles, but they are reluctant to make these changes in their own life. The saying, “do as I say, not as I do” comes to mind.

The summit in Copenhagen is currently accounting for the use of 1,200 limousines and hundreds of private jets. The carbon footprint of the conference will be the equivalent of a large city. These are the people who are making decisions that affect us?

If the attendees won’t follow the suggestions and regulations they want to impose on others, then why are we even paying attention to them?

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.