That Ol’ Debbil, Global Warming.

Sound the panic alarm. Again.

The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans.

Why?

Here’s something that Ignatius left out of his column. There’s absolutely no conclusive proof, nor even scientific consensus, that human beings are either measurably contributing to global warming nor that we are capable of influencing it one way or the other. Ignatius mentions “scientists and responsible politicians” but he fails to mention that there are “scientists and responsible politicians” on the other side of the issue also.

That’s negligent. Ignatius is certainly welcome to champion whatever causes he wishes. He ought to tell the whole truth, though, and not merely the part of the truth that bolsters his case.

Why should his Chicken Little column shock America’s conscience? Why should we listen to Ignatius when he can’t trust us with all the information available?

I’m not making news here. A basic search of the internet will reap you thousands of differing opinions, conflicting studies, and real scientific debate about our part in global warming and how, or if, we can do anything to ameliorate it in any way.

Ignatius’ arguments are the same old claptrap that’s been debunked a few thousand times by people much smarter than I. He would have done far better to make the honest case – that though there is no solid evidence that we can influence global warming, there is evidence that with smart measures, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions without resorting to economy-wrecking big government Kyoto-style measures. He could have told us, without resorting to the panicky twaddle, that good stewardship requires us to do what we can within limits of reason to treat the planet well and to use the resources we have wisely and without needless waste or destruction and that there are companies as we speak developing ways ot do just that. He could have been honest and made a realistic and resonable case. Instead he chose to shade the truth, leave out a couple important points, and push the panic button one more time.

He could have, but he didn’t. And that’s a shame because he has a platform that would have been a perfect place to make such a case. Instead, we get the same old warmed-over Al Gore panic, only with less spittle and no payment check from a dictator.