Walter Williams had an excellent article this week where he discussed the issues of the current global warming debate and the hypocrisy of those who endorse it. It would be wrong to label them all "the left", because there are loonies on both sides of the aisle on this one, but the loony crowd does seem to lean a little to the sinister side.

In my article "The Pothead Who Came to Dinner", I discussed the hemp argument on alternative fuels and the hypocrisy evident in the fact that the hemp legalization movement is not even allowed at the debate, despite the tremendous possibilities that hemp offers in the area of alternative fuels. In the global warming debate, the hypocrisy exists in the fact that the loonies won't even allow the opinions of those who feel global warming may not be man made to be heard. At Live Earth, Robert Kennedy even accused those who don't believe global warming is man made of treason, giving a more liberal definition of the word even than Bush and his "if you're not for me, you're against America" mentality.

As Williams rightly points out, the problem with using verbage like treason is that treason has a very specific legal connotation. It was the first federal capital crime in America, and is such a serious charge, only a handful of American citizens have ever been convicted of it.

This past week in the new global warming "shock and awe" campaign, it came out that Arctic ice was at its "record low" level. Everybody panic. The Arctic ice will be gone in 30 years!

But a closer inspection of the article reveals its own deception. The article's author goes on to state that Arctic ice has only been measured for the past 30 years, since we've had reliable satellite photography.

So we're using 30 years of measurements to extrapolate long term forecasts? 30 years of measurement is a VERY small piece of the curve by which to measure either a) billions of years of climate change (as the old earth theorists believe); or even thousands of years of climate change (as young earth theorists believe). There is, simply put, far too much information that we do not know.

Global warming follows the new breed of science which seems to teach that it is heresy to even question the newest research. Science that refuses questions is junk science at best, outright balderdash at worst. In its own sad way, science has become all too much like certain religions, where dissension is discouraged and where findings are based on preconceived notions rather than any valid attempt at self discovery.

A hard look at global warming yields more questions than it does answers. But since it is verbotten to even ask those questions, we need to begin to ask "why?" What, exactly, is it, that the Global Warming loons do not want us to discover?