Investor’s Business Daily carries this in an editorial today:

Forget warnings of catastrophic melting polar ice and rising sea levels, though, and consider for a moment the effects of a warming Earth.

Food output would increase as growing seasons become longer and climates now too cold for agriculture evolve into temperate zones that can support crops. With a world population that is expected to grow from its current 6.7 billion to 8.9 billion in 2050, harvests will have to become more abundant to keep up with the demand.

A warming Earth would also mean a healthier human race. Heat kills, but it’s not as deadly as cold. A 1990s study found that cold-related deaths kill 80,000 year in the United Kingdom — 100 times the number of those who die heat-related deaths.

Cold weather is lethal because it increases blood clots, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes, and promotes the transmission of respiratory diseases, such as pneumonia and influenza, that are among the top causes of death in the U.S. and other developed nations. Thomas Gale Moore of the Hoover Institution figures that a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees Celsius would cut deaths due to respiratory and circulatory diseases by roughly 40,000 a year.

While global warm-ongers talk in gloomy tones about SUV-induced droughts, higher temperatures would actually boost precipitation. There is little or no argument among scientists about this. On a planet with a growing population where as much as 40% of the human race could be living in regions with insufficient water supplies by 2035, an increase in precipitation is not insignificant.

Finally, a warmer planet would be a greener planet as well. Isn’t this what the environmentalists want — more green? Or is their real goal to roll back concrete, asphalt, steel and glass, the building blocks of human advancement and prosperity?

No one can be sure how the sun will behave in the coming decades. There’s even disagreement over August’s solar activity. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now thinks it saw a small sun spot on Aug. 21 while UCLA researchers still say it was a spotless month.

But if historical patterns hold, the sun is entering a down cycle that will make ours a more frosty world. The facts are enough to make Al Gore shiver.

 Here is an article in The Australian by David Evans, one of the people who made the mistakes with the computer modeling on which Al Gore based his prediction that THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH if we do not obey him – Al Gore! – and live nasty, short, cold, hard lives in order to ‘save the planet’. 

Dr Evans now admits he was wrong. 

We proclaim: 

There is no global warming.  

Carbon emissions never did cause it. 

Human activity does not cause it . 

It is time for this madness of crowds to die down.  

 Read here how Al Gore is ridiculous, hypocritical, and full of delusions of grandeur.

 Read here how Al Gore is to blame for the high price of gas.

The President of the Czech Republic recognizes a bid to curb liberty when he sees one.

He sees it in the determination of the Global Warmists – which is to say mainly the global Left – to  dictate to us how we must run our lives: obediently, in economically reduced circumstances, and with much greater dependency on the slender mercies of the state.  All other excuses for Socialism having failed, the Left is trying to impose it on us with the pretext of saving the planet.

Read what he has said and written about this here.

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine have the signatures of over 31,000 scientists denying man-made global warming.

The number should not matter, only the quality of the scientific research.  But as the warmists have made an issue of how many support their claim, it will be interesting to hear what they have to say now that they are massively out-numbered.

Believers in the nonsense of "global warming" have managed to get polar bears declared a threatened species, although they have survived for millenia through many actual warmings and coolings, are highly  adaptable, and more numerous now than ever before to human knowledge.

This is a prize example of public sentimentality. Why choose polar bears to pity? Because they are like big cuddly toys, all furry and white. And so appealingly photogenic.  To preserve such darlings we should change our whole way of life to something far less free and comfortable,  in obedience to the commands of the prevailing ALGORITHM.

Yet the chance that they might be destroyed as a species is so remote as to be negligible.

George Will, writing in Townhall (May 22, 2008) puts the case this way: "The bears will be threatened  IF the current episode of warming, IF there really is one, is, unlike in the previous episodes, irreversible, and IF it intensifies , and IF it continues to melt sea ice vital to the bears, and IF the bears, unlike in many previous warming episodes, cannot adapt." (My emphases.)

He also points out that this kind of prediction influencing government action is what Friedrich Hayek called THE FATAL CONCEIT: the idea that government can know the future and control it. And he reminds us that the THE FATAL CONCEIT IS THE AGENDA OF THE LEFT.

We cannot provide a link to the article but recommend that you read the whole thing.