Here is an extremely sensible, factually informed and logical piece about global warming. Thomas Sieger Derr, a professor of religion and ethics who has written a lot about environmental ethics, points out in this piece in First Things the screamingly obvious -- that the so-called scientific evidence for global warming simply doesn't stack up:

'In sum, what we learn from multiple sources is that the earth (and not just Europe) was warmer in the tenth century than it is now, that it cooled dramatically in the middle of our second millennium (this has been called the "little ice age"), and then began warming again. Temperatures were higher in medieval times (from about 800 to 1300) than they are now, and the twentieth century represented a recovery from the little ice age to something like normal. The false perception that the recent warming trend is out of the ordinary is heightened by its being measured from an extraordinarily cold starting point, without taking into account the earlier balmy medieval period, sometimes called the Medieval Climate Optimum. Data such as fossilized sea shells indicate that similar natural climate swings occurred in prehistoric times, well before the appearance of the human race.

'Even the period for which we have records can be misread. While the average global surface temperature increased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius during the twentieth century, the major part of that warming occurred in the early part of the century, before the rapid rise in human population and before the consequent rise in emissions of polluting substances into the atmosphere. There was actually a noticeable cooling period after World War II, and this climate trend produced a rather different sort of alarmism—some predicted the return of an ice age. In 1974 the National Science Board, observing a thirty-year-long decline in world temperature, predicted the end of temperate times and the dawning of the next glacial age. Meteorologists, Newsweek reported, were "almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." But they were wrong, as we now know (another caution about supposedly "unanimous" scientific opinion), and after 1975 we began to experience our current warming trend. Notice that these fluctuations, over the centuries and within them, do not correlate with human numbers or activity. They are evidently caused by something else.'

This is saying no more than countless scientists have been trying to point out since the whole global warming scam started back in the late 1980s. Sieger Derr then asks the big question: why have so many people been taken in by it? As he concludes:

'Picking apart this argument to show the weakness of its pieces does not go to the heart of the fear and loathing that motivate it. The revulsion shows in the prescriptions advanced by the global warming alarmists: roll back emissions to earlier levels; reduce production and consumption of goods; lower birth rates. Our material ease and the freedoms it has spawned are dangerous illusions, bargains with the devil, and now comes the reckoning. A major apocalypse looms, either to destroy or, paradoxically, to save us—if we come to our senses in the nick of time.'

Fear and loathing are indeed the key. It is particularly notable that many of the people who insist that global terror against the west is a manufactured threat, thus denying the evidence of their own eyes, tend to be the same people who insist that global warming is a real threat, thus denying the evidence of their own eyes. Both are surely rooted in the same mindset-- fear and loathing of the west, and a desire to destroy it rather than defend it. Of course, this does not apply to all who take these positions. But there is surely a general premise that has become the orthodoxy that the west is bad and the rest is good. Thus irrationality, malice and cultural suicide have become the hallmarks of our age. Thnk goodness there are still some people who can think straight, and bear witness to reality.