When liberals aren't championing the cause of the helpless victim, they're playing the part themselves.  Such was the case with David Letterman when he proclaimed that the government must "do something" to combat global warming.  Note to David:  they already are.  That's why gas is $4 per gallon and rising.  This is the government idea of doing something.  To liberals, it's not the outcomes that matter, but the good intentions.  The government has mandated new fuel standards in cars making them even less safe.  They've mandated auto makers to make cars so small and fuel efficient that no one in their right mind would want to drive them under normal circumstances, but these definitely are not normal.  They've also mandated a certain amount of ethanol to be grown and used, taking up land that would normally be used to grow crops for food.  So, Dave, ease up.  The government is doing something - the wrong thing.

So what should the government do to combat global warming?

Well, that's a good question, but there are others we should ask first.  I'm in school, and being taught to do a lot of "critical thinking."  So let's see if I can come up with some "critical thinking" type questions.  Hmmm...O.K.  First, "Is global warming real?"  Second, "If global warming is real, how can we tell whether or not it's being caused by humans?"  Third, "Is global warming necessarily a bad thing?"

Is global warming real?  What's the evidence that global warming is really going on?  Is that evidence conclusive?  There have been numerous books written on the subject from both sides, and I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the subject.  After having read numerous books on the topic, I'm not entirely convinced that the evidence is conclusive.  That's not to say that there is nothing going on.  Certainly some parts of the globe are experiencing warming, but other parts of the globe are actually cooling down.  Some of the areas that are experiencing the biggest warming trends are large cities where concrete and steel trap the heat.  Satellite data over the same areas, however, reflect no (or minimal) atmospheric warming, yielding the conclusion that the warming is happening on the ground rather than in the atmosphere.  So - is global warming real?  Maybe; maybe not.

Well, what if it is real?  Shouldn't the governments of the world act to combat global warming just in case?  Well, the question is whether or not we can do anything.  Is global warming caused by humans, or are there natural causes for global warming?  Here we have actual data to support the idea that global warming has natural causes.  Several years ago, Discover magazine did a story about the coming "mini-ice age" caused by global warming.  The theory is that all these melting glaciers will enter the oceans, and disrupt the currents, causing lots of cool, fresh water to collect in the northern oceans.  As part of the story, they state that this sort of thing has happened in the  past, and that it is a normal earth cycle.  This time, however, is different.  This time, it's being caused by evil humans polluting the environment.  Wait - so every other time before, it was caused by nature, but this time, if it does happen, it will be caused by pollution.  Does this sound like fear-mongering to you?  What evidence have they gathered in the last thousand years that would lead them to believe we're doing something different this time?  How do they know?  There have been periods of global warming in the past, before we had cars and used oil for anything other than lighting at night.  And yet this time, unlike every other time in the past, it's being caused because we're driving gas-guzzling cars that support the evil oil tycoons.  To liberals, it's plain as day:  BP is destroying the planet!

But are they really?  OK, let's just say for the sake of argument that global warming (should that be capitalized?  Global Warming?) is real.  OK.  Fine.  Let's also say that we are doing it.  Is it necessarily a bad thing?  Is global warming destructive?  To listen to the pundits and scaremongers, global warming will destroy the planet.  It will leave this rock a desolate wasteland after massive extinctions drive the rest of us to starvation.  That is, those of us that don't get washed away by floods in some areas or starved by drought in others. 

Well, I'd like to point out here that scientists still have no good answer as to what makes clouds form the way they do.  They can't tell us with any kind of accuracy what the weather will do a week from now.  How can they proclaim what will happen to the planet in twenty or a hundred years?  The earth goes through cycles.  Everyone knows this.  And yet, when those cycles start, environmentalists claim that we are the culprits, and that those cycles wouldn't be as severe were it not for human activities.  They can't know that.  There is no way for them to determine what the weather would be were we not here.  It's only speculation, and they are pushing governments to make decisions based on that speculative science.

Again, we have evidence from the past that any global warming would actually be a good thing.  If the glaciers melt, that means more fresh water for farming and agriculture, which means more crops, which means the world can now support more life.  Yes folks, have as many kids as you want:  global warming will ensure we have enough food to support all 15!  More water on the ground means more evaporation (more water evaporates when the weather is warmer), which means more rain, which means more greenery.  Ever heard of the rain forests of central America and central Africa?  Now picture foliage like that in more places.  Is it possible we could see deserts shrink?  Well, it's at least as likely as the famine, dread, and horror forcasted by the environmentalist-socialist movement.

So eat!  Drink!  Be merry!  And if you can afford it, drive that big SUV!  And pray for more global warming.  Maybe Washington D.C. will become so hot that government officials will be forced to leave and go get real jobs.