Global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one. The sooner people recognize the bias in research today, the better off we will be.
Because President Donald Trump decided to exit from the Paris Accord today, the air is rife with hubris. While both sides of the environmental protection debate are generally guilty, global warming alarmists are arguably the worse offenders now. First, it’s important to place a few things in perspective. The accord was voluntary, and in the case of one of the worst environmental offenders on the planet, China still isn’t planning to do anything meaningful to reduce carbon emissions until the year 2030.
Next, it is important to remember that like anything else, we should follow the money to determine what the truth really is. The lobbyists who are telling the American people that we are caterers to our own demise if we don’t do something about greenhouse gases, are the ones getting the lion’s share of the funding to get that message out there to the people. They’ve tried to deny this, but the truth did come out.
In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be such a thing as biased scientific research, but like everything else, it’s all about who is funding the work. We should be familiar with this concept, since we’re slowly seeing increased research into medicinal uses of cannabis – something that still doesn’t happen on a large scale because the only research that the US government will currently allow is anything that will prove how dangerous it is. The same kind of bias applies in the world of climatology. If you quickly peruse the listing of current research grants offered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and private grants from various foundations, the bias is easy to see. There is no money to speak of in trying to accurately determine whether or not the actions of humans (and industries) are really the only factor involved in climate fluctuations.
Another fallacy that must be pointed out is that there is no such thing as “settled science,” at least not on anything of such a large scale and complexity as our climate. Anyone who enters into scientific research with a pre-determined belief about what the results must be – beyond making a simple hypothesis based on previous research – should be considered suspect. Because money is guiding such a great deal of research in this area, the people should be more than a little suspicious about outcomes that match what the agencies and foundations had wanted “science” to prove.
No matter how much anyone claims that we are destroying our planet, the fact is that we aren’t. It was here long before humans, and barring a celestial disaster like our sun going supernova, it will be here long after we’re gone. What we’re really talking about is keeping the planet hospitable for humans. As a resident of the Pittsburgh region, I’m already well-aware of how that works. The air over this region was once unbearably polluted, thanks mostly to the steel industry. Our city remains one of the largest producers of steel in the nation, but we’re not suffering from the severe pollution my grandparents dealt with daily. While governmental regulations did play a part in cleaning up our city, the bigger motivation was selling the region to potential residents. Pittsburgh cleaned up its act to keep people living here, and to encourage more to call it home. Yes, there are still bad businesses out there that fail to see the value in environmental stewardship, but history tells us that they won’t thrive for years to come if they don’t clean up their acts. The people, and more importantly the markets, will decide for them.
It is the supreme level of hubris to claim that environmentalism is about saving the planet. It is about control, of people and industry, when it is used by government as a justification for policies and taxes that would never be accepted by the public if they weren’t terrified of our planet becoming a blighted wasteland. The fact is that we’re more likely to see the end of days for man on this planet thanks to being hit by a planet-killer object from space, than from noxious chemicals produced by industry. Industries need people to buy products to stay in business, and if the people stop buying because the companies are polluting too much, they will stop making a mess of things – either by going out of business, or by changing their ways to stay afloat. If Americans really want to save the planet, then maybe they need to start demanding real research, instead of agenda driven drivel.