Monday, April 16, 2007

What Will Global Warming Advocates Do with Coldest April Ever?

Bloomberg is reporting that this April in New York is the coldest in recorded history. The agriculture industry is reporting the same thing nationwide. Such news is having a chilling effect of the global warming campaign. Well, at least it should. But the common belief among the global warming crowd is "please don't bore us with facts."

The facts are is that weather has shifted in different directions for years. In the 1970s, when I was a young person in school, the fear was global freezing. Every serious weather scientist has told me that these changes have been cyclical and have serious doubts about global warming. The current extreme weather in April is indicative of this fact.

Why are conservatives and many libertarians suspicious about global warming warnings? Here's just a few reasons:

  • Environmentalists need to produce negative reports in order to get more money. The alarmism fuels a very lucrative industry called "scientific research"

  • The real issue for environmentalists is control. They are not nearly as interested in stopping pollution as they are in controlling the economy. For example, if the rain forest is so important in preventing climate change, environmentalists should buy large portions of the land, rather than try to force the Latin American governments to do what they demand. The ten largest environmental organizations have more money than the two major political parties in the US combined. They could certainly afford to preserve much of it.

  • The best way to improve the environment is technology, not regulation. I visited Poland and found it almost impossible to breath. While there I found out it had the toughest regulations of any country in the world and that they existed for decades. Another example is the Super Fund, which was designed by the EPA to clean up waste from factories and other environmental disasters. The vast majority of that fund goes to lawyers, according to the National Center for Policy Analysts.

  • The safety of such reforms are questionable. For example, every time fuel mileage requirements goes up, auto safety goes down because cars are not as safe when they face such difficult fuel mileage requirements (they reduce the weight in order to improve the mileage).

I can go on, but the theme is the same. The science is suspicious and the consequences to dramatic reforms could be huge and devastating on the economy. Freedom and economic prosperity could be victims of the global warming hysteria.

Labels: , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home