Hypocrisy, thy name is Climate Change Activist. Frequent readers of this site know that I don't prescribe to the entire human-caused global warming theory. In fact, I've went as far as to endorse a cause that I think is far more probable. One of the reasons it's so hard to believe the "experts and activists" is because they're so unwilling to alter their own lifestyle to fight what they claim is an armageddon-like problem. Example, via Bali News:

(11/3/2007) Tempo Interaktif reports that Angkasa Pura - the management of Bali's Ngurah Rai International Airport are concerned that the large number of additional private charter flights expected in Bali during the UN Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) December 3-15, 2007, will exceed the carrying capacity of apron areas. To meet the added demand for aircraft storage officials are allocating "parking space" at other airports in Indonesia.

The United Nations is using tons of charter and private planes as opposed to mass transit of some sort? Gasp! That's absolutely shocking. The reality of the situation is, the delegates heading to this vacation spot conference aren't about to change their flying-high lifestyle to fight global warming, and neither should we. Until the environazis start acting like there's a real problem, don't expect me to take them seriously.

Ok, so Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. In all honesty, this is news that's not that important, but great fodder for commentary. I have about a million different ways I could be insulting the Goracle right now, but about 999,999 of them have already been fleshed out on other websites. So, on to the new angle. How do you win a Nobel Peace Prize? Here's an excerpt:

3. Kill a lot of people, then stop. In 1973, the Nobel Peace Prize was shared by Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. Kissinger's CV included the "secret" bombing of Cambodia and the "Christmas" bombing of North Vietnam; just a month before his prize was announced, he was complicit in the coup that installed a brutal dictatorship in Chile. So why did he win? Because he and Tho had reached a truce to end the Vietnam War. Tho wasn't a particularly peaceful man either, but at least he had the common courtesy to refuse the award.

The first two ways to win that Nobel Peace Prize are equally comedic. I suppose if I was a blogger in the 1970s however, I would be angry because Kissinger wasn't doing enough to destroy the North Vietnamese tyrant regime. In almost a perfect parallel to today's conflict, it's administration after administration not doing enough to win the battle. Too bad the stakes are higher this time. To put this all in context, the Goracle won the prize in a unique way. He made a crappy inaccurate movie.

Former Vice President of the United States, Academy Award Winner, Candidate for President, Nobel Peace Prize Winner. Throw all of those out. You can just call him Al. Big fat, lying, manipulative Al. The Goracle, as he's been dubbed by many on my side of the aisle, has received the Nobel Peace Prize. That Prize is a running gag at this point, having been given to the likes of Yasser Arafat and Jimmy Carter in the past.

The Nobel Prize Website has the pathetic news. Michelle Malkin and Jay from Stop the ACLU have some of the better stuff though. Example? What the Czech President said about climate change:

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

Those are some pretty radical and sobering words from a man who leads a nation ravaged by war and communism for years. I support giving this man a Nobel Peace Prize for that amount of clarity. On the serious matter of who deserved the prize, Captain Ed weighs in:

Who else could have won the Nobel prize, if the committee wanted to promote peace and freedom rather than political allies? Well, perhaps they may have considered the hundreds, if ot thousands of monks in Burma who just sacrificed their lives in the pursuit of non-violent regime change. One or more of the people involved in the six-nation talks that has avoided war over North Korea’s nuclear-weapons programs would have also seemed a more germane choice.

Personally, I don't know who should win the prize, mainly because I think war is one of the steps on the way to peace many times. I believe history will prove President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to be peacemakers. The liberal left would have none of that, but perhaps that's why I like it so much.

Update: For idiots that disqualify FOX News simply because they're... well... FOX News, Daily Tech has all the information on the study you should need.

There's a huge concensus in the scientific community that humans are causing global warming and that global warming is going to destroy the world, in like 11 minutes or something like that. By huge concensus I mean Al Gore and people who get grants for supporting that theory. A reader with a solid scientific background e-mailed the following:

Sadly, the general public and the college/university students and professors in their scientific communities are woefully ill prepared to think critically (rather than be brainwashed) about most things political and scientific as of now! That has to change! Many of my colleagues and I are doing our best to aggressively address the misinformation campaign by the media and, sorry to say, unethical spokespersons on the global warming Issue. (We need common sense celebrities, I guess! Are there any? We're looking! Really!)

Emphasis hers. We do need some common sense in dealing with the global warming issue, and we do need to analyze reports for what they are, scientific theories with evidence. We also need to analyze reports with conflicting theories and evidence. The huge 'concensus' on the issue isn't that huge at all. In fact, the issue was addressed on the show Special Report with Brit Hume:

Earlier this year the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "90 percent likely" that man was having an impact on global temperatures. And dailytech.com reports an analysis of scientific papers in 2004 concluded that a majority of researchers supported what it called the "consensus view" that humans were effecting climate change.

But now a study of all research papers between 2004 and 2007 indicates only seven percent give an explicit endorsement of that so-called consensus. Forty-five percent give an implicit endorsement. But 48 percent of the papers are classified as neutral — neither accepting nor rejecting the hypothesis. And only one of the 528 papers reviewed makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

That one paper was the script for the movie The Day After Tomorrow. I'm joking of course, but the lack of concensus is something more people need to know about. It's now assumed that human-created global warming and climate change are legitimate scientific fact. It's simply not true. The verdict from the scientific community is still out, and the issue is beyond being politicized. Let's get a common sense concensus before putting on our Doomsday hats.

BUMP: NASA fixes temperature data and it turns out that 1998 was not the warmest year in the millenium. In fact, the warmest year was prior to WW2.

I don't know if anyone noticed lately, but a giant ball of fire, and by giant I mean 1,000,000x the size of the Earth, is burning relatively close to our planet. It's giving off more energy lately, and it's warmer. Many people would like us to believe that it's our fault. Bill Steigerwald nails it:

Going back 10,000 years, a 1998 study found that past periods of global warming coincided nicely with increased sunspot activity, which occur during increases in the sun's brightness and energy output. In 2004, a study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research said Earth was getting hotter because the sun was burning brighter than it had in 1,000 years.

We don't want to get into an ugly debate about the prime cause of global warming. But maybe all those sun-worshipping ancestors of ours were not such dummies after all.

Let's go ahead and weigh the options here. Are humanity's actions, which are relatively small in the grand scheme of things, destroying the planet, or is the giant ball of fire that's putting out more heat causing our temporary kick-up on the farenheit scale? I'm going to go with the second one. The sun, now the officially endorsed cause of global warming here on Right on the Right.