Critical questions for global warming advocates

Here are three critical questions from yesterday's London Telegraph (which actually came from the Australian Government) that global warming advocates and scientists should be required to answer prior to any more legislative efforts to reorder the economy to combat "climate change:"

How, since temperatures have been dropping, can CO2 be blamed for them rising? What, if CO2 was the cause of recent warming, was the cause of temperatures rising higher in the past? Why, since the official computer models have been proved wrong, should we rely on them for future projections?

Clearly there is an emerging counter-consensus that global warming is a bunch of hooey (it's a real word, I looked it up), joined in part, by a recent EPA report questioning the premise of glogal warming that the Obama Administration quickly quashed.

For years, climate change activists have been painting their opponents as members of the "flat-earth society" that would have challenged the findings of Galleo because they contradicted church doctrine.

But I am nonetheless not surprised that those responsible for the climate change hysteria are now in the position of squelching scientific evidence - simply because it inconveniently condradicts the offical Washington doctrine - that massive government intervention is required to prevent the earth's climate from rising a few degrees over the next century. Even if we could agree that is what was actually happening.