The other possibility, not exclusive of the funding, is that there is an ulterior motive at play (the real issue), and that is the proponents are Leftists/Marxists trying to drag capitalism down because Marxist communism failed. If communism can't succeed, then capitalism must fail.

In the ‘70s, they tried selling us the idea of a new ice age. When we defeat the current Marxists’ attempt to drag capitalism down, what’s next? How about global flattening? The flattening of the globe could be due mainly to man-caused changes to the roundness of the earth such as his use of giant earth-moving equipment and oil-drilling rigs that cause the collapse of the surface when oil is removed from deep within the crust. Just think of all the new studies (well-funded, of course) that could be done and conferences that could be attended that would demand the U.S. curtail its development of the land. Communist China will be exempt, of course.

One thing to bear in mind about Steyn's statistics: It will predictably be our fault. The emissions outside the US are no-doubt because China and Mexico and Eastern Europe require more power to manufacture the stuff our imperialist, consumer-driven culture covets like iPods, heated seats for our SUVs, and Bratz dolls with hydrocarbon-derived hair follicles. Further, we've beamed our TV signals around the globe via satellite, exporting our culture forcibly and creating a "keep up with the Joneses" peer pressure that is impossible to resist by these gentle peoples who were at one with the earth until we came along. Were it not for us, the rest of the world would be completely content without fossil fuels or electricity.

This is why it is important to look beneath the statistics to the real story. I'm sure that it will only be a matter of time before Steyn's statistics are given suitable "context" by the Left to explain that only superficial conservatives would draw simplistic assumptions about carbon hypocrisy.

Apparently you missed the memo that explained it's all about perception, not reality. What one actually does to reduce emissions isn't nearly as important as having the right bumper sticker, or making sure those emissions don't come out your Toyota Primus's tailpipe and instead go up that coal plant's smokestack and out that mining truck's tailpipe 500 miles away when you plug your car in at night.

I'm wondering how all those delegates got to Bali. Might it have involved jet aircraft – perhaps even private jet aircraft?

It brings to mind the phrase, "let them eat cake."

At the recent climate jamboree in Bali, the Rev. Al Gore told the assembled faithful: "My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here." Really? The American Thinker's Web site ran the numbers. In the seven years between the signing of Kyoto in 1997 and 2004, here's what happened:

•Emissions worldwide increased 18.0 percent;

•Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1 percent;

•Emissions from nonsigners increased 10.0 percent; and

•Emissions from the United States increased 6.6 percent.

It's hard not to conclude a form of mental illness has gripped the world's elites.

Monday, I was in a Rite Aid store to buy some Christmas cards. What should assualt my eyes but a Christmas card dealing with global warming. George Bush and Condi Rice had been altered in photoshop to have bald, sunburned heads with wisps of smoke coming off the top.

Yesterday, it was an internal newsletter from my employer blathering again about "carbon footprints" and our "committment" to reduce them. (I have no problem with saving energy…I have a problem with the premise of why we should save energy.)

And then we wonder why so many people who have never taken the time to actually research the matter for themselves are "sure" that global warming is caused by man rather than part of some naturally occurring cycle. What do we expect when this dubious message is screamed from every corner as though it were fact?

Caruba barely touches on the real issue in his last two short paragraphs.