4-18-08, 9:18 am

Global warming alarmists are right. Scientists and activists who claim that climate change may impact weather patterns such as tropical storms and hurricanes appear to know what they are talking about, according to a recent article in .

The Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology examined changes in 'the position and strength of jet streams' between 1979 and 2001. Over this period the Carnegie study found that 'the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles.'

Because the jet streams are the engine of global weather patterns, their shift toward the poles could have a huge impact on the pace and type of changing weather. One result of this change that may be of particular interest to North American residents is that hurricanes and tropical storms may move further north.

But at issue is more than just different weather patterns. According to ScienceDaily.com, 'These changes fit the predictions of global warming models and have implications for the frequency and intensity of future storms, including hurricanes.'

The scientists who authored the Carnegie study also expressed strong confidence the that shifting jet streams along with widening tropical zone and the cooling of the stratosphere they observed are linked directly to global warming.

These revelations come on the heels of a lackluster Bush speech on climate change earlier in the week in which he argued that human-generated carbon emissions that cause global warming need not be eliminated for another 17 years.

Describing Bush's plan as 'toothless,' Time magazine called it 'too little, too slow, too late.'

While Bush has finally come around to calling for shifting to carbon-free alternative energy, he has refused to insist on capping carbon emissions, which would penalize big polluters and give them an incentive to shift to green alternatives.

'By raising the cost of fossil fuels, carbon caps drive investment toward energy efficiency and alternative power,' the Time article said.

Environmental writer David Roberts of online environmental news and commentary magazine, Grist, wrote that Bush's weak proposals would mean 'averting catastrophe will be impossible.'

Roberts pointed out that 'there's nothing new in this speech. It's meant to thwart real efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. It's meant to gum up the international process. It's meant to protect corporate contributors from regulatory constraints. It will doom the planet to out of control heating and untold misery.'

Like Roberts, other critics of Bush's do-nothing environmental policy are even critical of the cap-and-trade plan advanced by most Democrats, including both presidential candidates. Cap-and-trade they say might help push some big polluters to invest in alternative energy and production methods that reduce carbon emissions, but others will simply buy the right to be big polluters.

One alternative to cap-and-trade is a 'carbon tax' that would do more to push big polluters to invest in green alternatives while providing revenue for government investments in non-fosisl fuel energy sources and bringing them to the market, according to . Additionally, the carbon tax would encourage consumers to purchase goods with lower carbon footprints by making them more market competitive.

One congressional advocate of the carbon tax is Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). In a recent statement, Dingell said, '[E]conomists and other experts continue to inform us that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient way at getting at the problem of global warming.”

Unfortunately, while public support for a 'carbon tax' is strong, Dingell, who chairs the House Energy Committee, which will have a huge impact on environmental policy, recently withdrew a bill that creates a 'carbon tax.' Dingell cited the economic downturn as a prime motive for his action, and he vowed to work to pass a cap-and-trade system.

Science is telling us almost daily that immediate and comprehensive steps are needed to avert global disaster. The 'free' market, corporate profits, and economic growth shouldn't be higher priorities than human survival or avoiding the misery likely to accompany some of the worst effects of global warming.

--Reach Joel Wendland at