Global Warming Revisited

One of the unlearned who wrote to my favorite fish and chips wrapper, the Beaver County Times, was applauding Arlen “The Defector” Specter for voting out climate legislation in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Susan Parker, of Glenshaw, PA identified climate change as a “serious economic and environmental problem” and advocated a “swift action that results in a cap on carbon…a national requirement for generating at least 25 percent of our electricity from clean, renewable sources”

Well, yes, if Susan’s proposed carbon cap were actually enacted it would pose a serious economic problem. She was half right, I suppose. Interestingly, none of the responses to her letter supported her position. I offered may take, none of which would be new to regular readers of this blog. I offer it in its entirety to stimulate discussion.

There is overwhelming consensus that global warming is occurring. I agree that global warming over the most recent 50 years is indisputable. But, the Earth has undergone heating and cooling cycles many times over.

There is no consensus that global warming is anthropogenic, or even it it were, that capping carbon output would have any effect. Tens of thousands of scientists have rejected the concept of man-caused global warming.

Capping carbon output would have a huge effect on industrial output and the cost of all goods and services we purchase. And therein lies the driver for this cause du jour. The rest of the world sees this as a means to hamstring the US economy. (Global envy.) Poor countries see this as a means to extract monies. (Global extortion.) Liberals see it as a means to sock it to industrialists. (Global socialism)

Given that there is considerable doubt as to whether climate change is caused my man or can be affected by a change in activities I see no reason to enact an effective tax of $3,000 per family on Americans until that claim is definitively proven.

Additionally, since that we know that past temperature variations were a naturally occurring phenomenon, aren’t we displaying the utmost in hubris in deciding that the climate we’ve experienced the past 100 years or so is the “right” one for this world? Who are we to dictate what the global temperature or weather patterns should be? That’s awfully arrogant of us, I believe.

Finally, a quote published in a real newspaper today:

“Writing in London’s Daily Telegraph, Janet Daley says the most important adjective of 2009 had to be “global.” But, she cautions, the word has “taken on sacred connotations” in which too many people believe that “any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily ‘narrow’ and self-serving.” We remind that “global” too often is a euphemism for nothing better than “democratic socialism” and that those who are fortunate enough to understand this should keep fighting the right and good fight against it.” — Pittsburgh Tribune Review, Dec. 23, 2009.