Climate is always changing, but telling us how much of the change is attributable to human activity is one spot where science is woefully inept. By extension, there is no way to predict what effect climate change legislation will have on the climate.
To date there has been no legislation proven effective in mitigating climate change. If such legislation were labeled medicine, the FDA would never approve it, nor would any legitimate scientist endorse it. Yet there is a great clamor inside the scientific community to get it passed. Power, like any other seductive influence, renders most mortals incapable of rational thought.
Representative John Shimkus recently created a stir by saying that he's not worried about global warming, because God promised Noah he would never flood the earth again.
I don't share Shimkus’ faith, but I understand his intention. Some people believe that God has a plan for us all; others believe in a fable about a big boat and pairs of animals; others simply believe that the earth is too enormous for mortals to destroy. These are all different versions of the same basic idea, one with which I agree.
People who believed in the literal version of the fable ran this nation for the better part of the past 234 years, and I don't see it doing any harm now. Atheists had the chance to demonstrate their superior governing abilities during the last century, and it really didn't work out so well.
According to Reuters, Al Gore recently admitted he was mistaken in his support for ethanol subsidies. He explained that he supported the original program because of his political ambitions.
Great. How many other things did he support for such reasons? Did he lie about the effects of global warming because of his ambition to win an Oscar and a Nobel Prize?
Vanity is a sin that is rarely committed only once.
Are environmentalists considering the depletion of forests and the production of toxic ink involved in manufacturing all the money required to keep Green Energy subsidized?
/p
