10 Questions for Consensus - Global warming devotees are most conspicuous for their singular habit of framing any any conversation on the subject as beyond reasonable debate; they brandish the word "consensus" as a mace, so ready are they to smite anyone who would doubt their collective wisdom. But beyond the well-rehearsed refrains from elements of the scientific community regarding a unanimity of opinion, there is much that climate change adherents have yet to understand or explain. To wit:

1) If anthropogenic greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, why is there melting of ice caps on Mars, Triton and Pluto similar to that recorded on Earth?

2) If atmospheric levels of man-made CO2 have been increasing steadily since record keeping began in the late 1950s, what accounts for the decades-long period of global cooling that occurred between the 1940s and the 1970s? (Is it that temperature increases precede rises in CO2 by decades or even centuries?)

3) Global warming theory would predict that temperatures in the upper atmosphere would be higher than lower atmospheric temperatures. If that is the case, why have temperature observations recorded exactly the opposite of what would be predicted by way of computerized climate modeling, particularly in the tropics?

4) Proponents of anthropogenic global warming aver that rising atmospheric temperatures result in increased ocean temperatures, especially at the surface. Why has the average temperature of the oceans decreased in recent years?

5) What is the impact of cosmic radiation on global climate, and how are these effects accounted for in global warming models?

6) If increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are a primary driver of global warming, what accounts for the fact that CO2 levels were 8 to 20 times higher than presently during the Late Ordovician Period ice age?

7) What is the level of scientific understanding of the impacts of airborne aerosols, land use and clouds on atmospheric temperatures?

8) What effects do water vapor and precipitation have on atmospheric temperatures?

9) How do variations in the earth's rotation and orbit affect temperature of the atmosphere?

10) What is the role of the ocean in moderating CO2 levels?

Now some of the more enlightened (or more correctly, more indoctrinated) global warming frightmongers will have seemingly coherent answers to a few of these questions, but certainly not all of them, as mature, robust data that addresses most areas of controversy is not yet to be found. To be sure, they will not have a good answer to this last question.

11) What is the ideal global climate for human habitation?

Indeed, this is the question upon which all else hangs. For if we cannot determine an "ideal" global climate - as opposed to a climate that we have all gotten used to, then we certainly will not know how far to go in our efforts to preserve our current climate. Unfortunately for all of us, the global warming crowd is wholly unable to provide a good answer, as that would require some sort of cost-benefit analysis to determine what global temperature range would most positively impact human survival and quality of life. (Never mind the fact that the whole notion of man trying avert global warming is like trying to turn up the air conditioner in a house made of chicken wire.)

As you contemplate these questions, it will hopefully become clear that man's knowledge of the Earth's climate is incomplete at best; to presume otherwise requires a staggering amount of scientific self-assurance. And to conclude that we can do anything to change the climate in any meaningful way is nothing short of a colossal hubris. As mentioned elsewhere, any notion of scientific consensus is nothing short of "shared ignorance."

The Power of Persuasion - The ability to reason is a gift not equally bequeathed to all. Indeed, at many points it appears to be in a distressingly short supply. That is part of what makes a recent victory in a three-on-three debate all the more delicious. (Far be it from me to tread on ground that that has already been trod by a fellow blogger, but with many apologies to Pali Gap, this news bears repeating.) Last month, the Rosenkranz Foundation in conjunction with Intelligence Squared sponsored a debate on the motion "Global Warming is not a crisis," with Micheal Crichton, Dr. Richard Lindzen and Dr. Philip Stott arguing for the motion, and Drs. Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard C. J. Somerville speaking against.

And so, the good news. Prior to the debate itself, audience members were polled as to their opinion of the resolution; 29.88 percent were in favor, 57.32 percent were opposed and 12.8 percent were undecided. Following the debate, a similar poll was taken which resulted in 46.22 percent in favor of the resolution and 42.22 percent opposed, with approximately 12 percent undecided. Perhaps the audience was persuaded by the lack of certainty exhibited by the climate change missionaries opposing the resolution. Or, just as likely, they were concerned that whatever threat global warming posed, it was far outstripped by the real and present dangers that confront the developing world presently, as noted by Mr. Crichton.

You know, I'm really fascinated at the number of newspaper headlines and articles that I see about global poverty and the difficulties of people in Africa as compared to the headlines about global warming... everyone knows that if you were to look at it for bangs for the buck, if you were to look at it from a humanitarian standpoint, if you were to look at it from the easiest way to do the most for environmental degradation as it's created around the world, you would address global poverty.

As articulated elsewhere, this very precis - that of a moral risk associated with attending to climate change to the neglect of other situations - is at the crux of most reasoned arguments against treating anthropogenic global warming as a looming threat. For if a rise in atmospheric temperatures on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over 100 years is of overwhelming concern, what then are we to say of intra-state genocide, Islamist terror, famine, disease or the myriad of other concerns that beset humankind?

That realization on the part of a group of New York sophisticates makes the recent SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA all the more disheartening. As discussed previously, the case revolved around two points, one being whether the plaintiffs had legal standing to bring their suit (the other being whether EPA had a mandate to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.) In the past, the EPA satisfied itself with attempting to reduce pollution resulting from nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds released by gasoline-powered motor vehicles, as well as carbon monoxide, particulates, sulfur dioxide and lead.

Under the Clean Air Act, and subsequent amendments (to include the 1990 Clean Air Act) the feds could promulgate regulations dictating the refining of cleaner fuels, as well as the production of cleaner cars, trucks, buses and so-called "non-road vehicles" such as locomotives, aircraft and construction equipment. The law allowed individual states to regulate pollutant emissions by power plants; states could also add surcharges to parking fees to encourage carpooling. All of the foregoing were to be done in order to "protect public health and welfare from any actual or potential adverse effect which in the Administrator's judgment may reasonably be anticipated to occur from air pollution."

In overturning a 2005 appeals court ruling in Washington, D.C, the court's majority sided with those who were concerned that Congress had not established a program to confront the "threat" of global warming. In the dissent, the minority seemed to express at least two concerns about the ruling. Justice Antonin Scalia noted that the decision may represent an undue judicial infringement on the authority of the executive branch.

The court's alarm over global warming may or may not be justified, but it ought not distort the outcome of this litigation. This is a straightforward administrative-law case, in which Congress has passed a malleable statute giving broad discretion, not to us but to an executive agency. No matter how important the underlying policy issues at stake, this court has no business substituting its own desired outcome for the reasoned judgment of the responsible agency.

But perhaps of greater concern, particularly to Chief Justice John Roberts, is the ruling's effect of elasticizing the notion of standing.

Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the courts claiming broad-ranging injury, and attempting to tie that injury to the government's alleged failure to comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would reject these challenges as nonjusticable.

So here again, we are left to conclude that in the opinion of progressives - judicial or otherwise - "facts, legal requirements and even the Constitution itself are not guidelines to which they must adhere, but merely obstacles to be surmounted." Would that the Left and their enablers would trust the "wisdom of the crowd" (even a crowd of New Yorkers) as opposed to leaning upon their own flawed understanding.

"Whew!! That was close." - Yesterday's sale of Tribune Co. to billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell represents a new chapter in the storied history of one of America's original newspaper companies. With holdings in radio, television, on-line and print media (to include the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and The Baltimore Sun), Tribune Co. is a well-diversified media conglomerate, and certainly represented a much-sought after prize for billionaires with money burning a hole in their Swiss bank accounts. As reported in the Tribune, Tribune Co. was in the sights of Zell and a pair of west coast billionaires, Eli Broad and Ron Burkle, both of whom thought Tribune Co. "too parochial to be the steward of the Los Angeles Times."

To be sure, with Zell's successful purchase of Tribune Co., longtime readers of the Tribune have dodged a bullet of sorts. We needn't worry that another Chicago icon will go by the wayside.

Zell's local roots play in his favor, especially in a city such as Chicago where its biggest bank is now headquartered in New York and the hometown department store has been renamed Macy's, civic leaders say. Zell grew up in Chicago and returned here to build his estimated $5.5 billion fortune, which has run the gamut from real estate to shipping containers to bicycles.

But just as important for those of us who favor some sort of balanced reporting from the mainstream media, Zell's ownership of the Tribune consortium represents that much more of a chance that such will remain the case (or more correctly, that the abundant liberal media bias will be less blatant.) Part of the reason why Tribune Co. favored the Zell offer over the one presented by Messrs. Burkle and Broad was the Tribune board's concern that Burkle and Broad wouldn't confirm that "they had no plans to inject themselves into the editorial process." Indeed, there is no doubt that Ron Burkle - a confidant of (and bagman for) Bill and Hillary Clinton - would not have flexed every editorial muscle to bend the reporting of the L.A. Times, the Tribune and the other Tribune Co. papers in the service of Clinton and Clinton leading up to the 2008 presidential elections and beyond.

To be sure, it is often the lot of conservatives that we must enjoy small victories. Seeing a national newspaper chain avoid becoming a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clinton, Inc. is an unexpected blessing much to be savored.

"And now for something completely different!" - Just when I am certain that this page can't get any better, the folks at Blogger push the envelop just a little further. Thanks to their continued innovation and hard work, this blog has two new capabilities that frequent readers will undoubtedly appreciate. First, you will notice a new series of newsfeeds along the right-hand side of the page. These feeds come directly from Fox News Network, and will have the advantage of providing news items originating in the U.S. (As careful readers may have noticed, many of the items in the current feed were from ex-U.S. news outlets.) It is hoped that by diversifying our feed sources, we can provide a wider range of reportage and interpretation. And as always, I commit to continue sharing my perspective on that which is worthy of comment.

But perhaps more significant than being able to provide news resources from both sides of the Atlantic, as of this post, we will be launching mm&tTV (powered by the good people at YouTube.) At the bottom of the right-hand side of the page, you will notice a series of video preview windows. As you rest your cursor on one of the preview panes, a brief description of the video will appear. By clicking on a pane, you can call up any of the videos, which will appear at the top of the web page. The videos come from a wide array of sources, to include the CATO Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, and most of them will last no more than 5-10 minutes. Current video offerings include two selections from Charlie Rose, a snippet from Politically Incorrect, and very good (and very lengthy) video of a presentation by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg on global climate change.

I trust that the addition of both of these new features will enhance the experience of visiting this site.