As I've explained before, I'm not so much into Global Warming denial as I am Global Warming Defiance. That's because the AGW political campaign is the largest attempted power grab I've seen in my life, and if there's one thing I do know, it's that bureaucratic attempts to solve problems are worse than the problems the bureaucrats attempt to solve. Basically, we the people emit carbon, and they the bureaucrats want to squeeze us and punish us any way they can, and tell us how to live. Nothing in the Constitution gives them such power, but they'll try to grab it anyway.

Global Warming, they say, results from certain human activities, which are therefore to be labeled "immoral." But which humans? American bureaucrats, working in tandem with international bureaucrats who generally hate Americans, take it as a given that Americans are the worst offenders, and should be squeezed the hardest.

Of course, one form this squeezing takes is persuading Americans to burn food as fuel -- which squeezes the world's poor by depleting the food supply. But never mind the rioting right now! For it is human activity that causes Global Warming, and the government bureaucracy says that burning food is the way to make it change.

As to alternative theories of which human activity might be the biggest cause, a guy blogging at Planck's Constant, however, maintains that Muslims are the worst offenders. However, at the end of his post, he offers a picture which casts doubt on his own assertion, for it clearly points to certain animals as the cause:

The irony is that while the above was meant to be humorous, according to the Global Warming Alarmists' own data, animals are in fact the biggest cause of greenhouse gases. (Something which isn't widely reported because the bureaucrats who have to implement these things realize it is much less palatable to go after farms than cars.)

Here, let me repeat myself repeating myself!

For the umpteenth time, by the environmentalists' own data, eating animals is the number one cause of Global Warming.

The whole Global Warming debate has become so fraught with politics and ad hominem attacks that any serious debate has become nearly impossible.

Things have reached the point where, largely because of a obnoxious meme called "The Overwhelming Scientific Consensus," important correlations go unnoticed and unreported.

Now, while I don't like to point the finger at certain humans, or certain human activities as the "cause" of something I'm not even sure is being accurately measured, what about certain human inactivities?

How many people realize, for example, that there is a direct, statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature?

I kid you not; check it out:

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Very convincing, and very damning.

I don't know what the readers think, but I think that should end all debate -- not only about the real cause of Global Warming, but what should be done about it!

We obviously need to go back to basics, and regain our traditional walking the plank constant!

MORE: As a typical example of where Government Global Warming-mongering is taking us, consider that it's even creating artificially high prices of beer

...biofuel subsidies that are pushing more farmers to ditch their barley crops--which are necessary to make beer*--in favor of crops that earn them lucrative subsidies from regulators trying to fight global warming. Topping the list of these subsidized crops are rapeseed and corn, ingredient which are used in the creation of biodiesel and ethanol-gasoline fuel blends which supposedly reduce the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.

Thanks to these crop shifts, the price of barley has doubled in the past two years, an increase that eventually gets passed along to consumers. Some brewers have raised their prices already, and many others are planning on raising them soon. German beer drinkers are already feeling the hit on beers like Erdmann's Ayinger, which raised its price from 6.10 euros to 6.40 euros over the last year. That's roughly fifty cents a beer for Germans who consume an average of more than 30 gallons of beer person each year.

But that seems like a fairly small price to pay for such a worthy cause, right? After all, if, as scientists like NASA climatologist James Hansen say, global warming threatens humanity with imminent catastrophe from climactic shifts and sea level rise, then biofuels might be a little more important than brew prices.

Problem is, it turns out that even if you consider climate change a serious threat, biofuels are hardly an effective means of preventing it. In fact, they just might exacerbate the problem. These days, anyone saying otherwise--like, for example, European regulators--must be sloshed.

BUT THIS IS MY BEER THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, DAMMIT!

I have to say that I agree with the source of the above link:

rising beer prices [are] the point at which we must all stand astride history and shout "STOP!."