Although I am one of those people who believe that:

A. Global warming is real and

B. Humans contribute to it

I’ve got to admit that I share a lot of the concerns expressed by Claudia Rosett in her latest column for Forbes.com.

Rosett argues that climate change debate has been hijacked by politics, and that even scientists have felt the need to cave in to the demands of politicians and activists, fearing that if they would dare adopt a critical attitude they may lose their job, grants and miss out on important promotions and other career-enhancing opportunities.

Writes Rosett:

So the plan now is that America, along with its bailouts and other burdens, will sacrifice to the global climate gods. Nevermind that an emissions cap-and-trade bill died in the Senate in June, sunk by the titanic price tag and regulatory overload it would have entailed. America’s top politicians, not entirely averse to finding ever-new ways to control and plunder the electorate, are still chugging the climate-change Kool-Aid. Once this starts, where does it stop? Carbon is the basis of life itself; carbon dioxide is exhaled with every breath. Regulating and taxing such matters is a road map to state meddling in every aspect of daily life.

And is the alarm even justified? U.N. proclamations to the contrary, there are numerous dissenting scientists. Among the dissenters is MIT professor of atmospheric sciences Richard Lindzen. In a recent, richly documented paper, he warns that the huge shift over the past half century toward government funding of scientific research has “led to extreme vulnerability to political manipulation.” He argues that today’s climate “consensus” is much more a product of politics than of science. Big government begets a push toward more of the same. Grants, prizes and jobs go chiefly to those who produce what eco-activists and U.N.-o-crats want to hear.

Who are these folks setting the climate agenda?

Most Americans have never heard of Yvo de Boer, and certainly never voted for him. De Boer is a Dutchman, appointed by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2006 to head the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.

De Boer is not a scientist; his bio says he has a “technical degree in social work.” Before joining the UNFCCC in the 1990s, he worked in the Dutch ministry of housing. These days, de Boer jets around the world presiding over conferences–such as last year’s two-week climate summit at a Bali beach resort–aimed at creating a global “climate change regime.” This regime rests on schemes for massive international wealth transfers, with multilateral bureaucracies calculating who owes, who pays and who gets special breaks–while related arms of these proliferating outfits crank out reports in which “science” is invoked to justify the entire set-up.

But didn’t the Nobel Peace Prize go last year to Al Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for their eco-warnings? Yes. And the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five Norwegian politicians, appointed by the Norwegian parliament. They may be nice people, but their judgment seems an odd basis for sweeping new controls on the U.S. economy.

And lets not forget that European leaders have broken with the (carbon) limits agreed upon earlier, due to the current economic crisis. Their reaction is a clear indication that doing what was agreed upon in order to fight global warming, will have tremendous economic impact, possibly ruining hundreds or thousands of businesses, creating more unemployment, and driving up costs for production considerably, while limiting the potential for growth in other areas considerably.

What is missing from the global warming debate at this moment is a sane voice, a sane, reasonable, intelligent approach to the problem – recognizing it to be a problem, but proposing solutions that would have an actual effect first and foremost, and, second, that would not ruin entire economies.