Global Warming, Good Intentions and the Perils of Bad Science

The administration and its promoters in Congress are now selling their latest spoon full of medicine that they promise is "good for us." Close your eyes, open wide and swallow hard. After all, who can argue with saving the planet for future generations? The cap and trade bill is the answer, or as our President referred to it, the "jobs bill." I don't know about you, but I love many parts of this planet and I very much want my grand kids to see and experience the spectacular beauty that is Earth. But I've read the scientific reports and summaries from across the globe and the numbers just do not match the rhetoric of global warming. In fact, the science that has been purported to support the postulate of man's "pollution" of Earth through the increased production of carbon dioxide is now being labeled as "junk" by an ever-growing community of international, credentialed, climate scientists. A list of sources for this data is under the "links" section of this blog. For a thorough (and thoroughly entertaining) review of this subject, read Green Hell by Steve Milloy.

So if the planet is not truly in peril from man's selfish need to drive V-8s down long stretches of highway instead of riding bikes to the densely new urban village/city, then why are we being asked to spend huge amounts of tax-payer monies to "discover, develop and market" green alternatives to reduce/slow global warming and thus save the planet? If the Zogby and Rasmussen polls tell us that a majority of Americans now believe Vice President Gore and his gang were zealously overstating the threat, why are we making huge financial commitments (our balance sheet doesn't look so good right now you know) and promises to the Europeans? My warm-hearted (but cold-headed) friends on the left will not like my answer. It is really quite simple. The broadly appealing ideas of doing good (government health care, government schools, government motors, government stimulus, government entitlements) are great covers to cleverly disguise the ultimate goal of every government...more government control and centralized authority. You can call it "cap and trade," but it's a tax on energy and it will affect everyone who buys gasoline, heating oil or electricity. We should not allow the laudable ideas and good intentions behind more government involvement to keep us from heeding the lessons of many past experiences with federal over-reaching. As George Will aptly put it in his column in today's Washington Post, "government is cumbersome, sluggish and inefficient." As examples, Will noted the US Postal Service lost $1.9 billion in Q2 and Amtrak has enjoyed 38 straight years without reporting a profit. Have you tried calling the IRS lately? Now, in the face of unemployment reaching double digits by year end, we are supposed to be in favor of more regulation, taxation and debt in the name of saving the planet?

Call me a publicly-educated, naive polluter, but I'm not buying what Washington is selling on this one. I'm all for developing alternatives to our dependence on foreign oil. I'm all for cleaner energy sources. I'm a conservationist. The idea of keeping America beautiful doesn't have to include creating new taxes and increasing burdens on private businesses. This is a time when we should be reducing the drag on private enterprise. This is a time when we should be supporting a robust free market battle for commercial solutions to these problems through capitalism. This is a time when the federal government should be tightening their budgets, reducing debts and improving the balance sheet...just like 95% of all businesses are doing all across this country.