In “Global Warming? I Dunno,” I discussed my reservations about buying into the global warming alarmists belief that Earth is warming due to human activities. The May 2008 edition of the Trumpet carries a report written by Brad MacDonald entitled, “A Really Inconvenient Truth,” in which he exposes some of the political pressure tactics used to promote the global warming alarmists’ agenda.
Of course, everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and we do need to manage our natural resources wisely, so I support many of the goals of the “alarmists.” The problem I have with them is the way they’re going about it—politicizing science and browbeating scientists whose research results contradict their own conclusions. That’s no way to get at the truth, however inconvenient the proper approach may be.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
IF President Bush had unveiled his goals for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the beginning of his administration instead of in its waning months, he might have actually played a role in linking the United States to global efforts to curb climate change. But the proposals he made yesterday, which in 2001 could have been a starting point for negotiations with advocates of stronger action in Congress, are now too belated and too weak to be more than a historical footnote. All three remaining presidential candidates are committed to much more stringent, mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide.
This just goes to prove my point about everyone’s insistence on politicizing the science. Scientists can’t even agree on whether the fact the planet is warming, cooling, or maintaining the status quo. If the planet is warming, they can’t agree on what’s causing the warming. Yet, everyone wants to shove new legislation through, even when they really have no factual basis to support that legislation.
I think we’re warming the Earth more by all the hot air we’re generating around this topic.