Confession: I have not seen Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. People say I shouldn't have an opinion about the environmental issues raised until I have. Their logic suggests I cannot have knowledge of syphilis until I catch it in a Mexican whorehouse. In both cases, I would rather avoid the spirochetes.

Contention: There are people who want you to be afraid. They will hold a gun or some such to your head. In your fear, you are apt to believe you will survive only because of their good pleasure. That's the power they want over you.

We call them extortionists, kidnappers, armed robbers, rapists. They are schoolyard bullies. They are certain politicians.

Never for a moment think they are aware of being wicked or bad. To their minds their good is everyone's good. Your undoing is hardly the issue.

For example, yesterday Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) kicked off a Senate debate on global warming. He believes greenhouse gasses will fry us all. Mr. Reid says Science backs him up. So do famous actors. A former Vice President says we're goners too.

So, we the people need to be punitively taxed on energy use, and in some instances prosecuted and jailed.

This will boost the cost of everything, will kill a lot of jobs and force you, if you haven't already, to use mass transit. Then there will be pressure on government to fix food prices, extend jobless benefits, and expand public transportation and continue to subsidize traveling graffiti shows. That's the short list. All of these cost money, and will require increasing taxation and very tight bureaucratic controls to bring about.

The restrictions, however, will be for our own good. We won't survive without them.

But suppose we can't do anything about the gun at our heads. Two weeks ago I saw an astronomer with a telescope and heard him tiredly explain to concerned civilian who was passing by: "Yes. Climate change. Cause by Sun. Comes in cycles."

Or suppose the gun isn't loaded. Or what if there isn't a gun at all?

A large body of expertise on global warming is contrary to the consensus Mr. Reid so comfortably assumes. In a May 19th WoldNetDaily story, reporter Bob Unruh takes on one the more famous Greenies for being full of the ol' Shinola. I have excerpted the article below, but it deserves a full read.

More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign. Now a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of consensus."

Project spokesman and founder Art Robinson Petition explained, "Mr. Gore's movie asserting 'settled science' conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse."

WND submitted a request to Al Gore's office for comment, but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," said Robinson.

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming."

Steitz wrote, "The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries."

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

But you can bet not one of them will be invited by Senator Reid to testify before his Congressional cronies.