"Warming Up" to a Myth
Mark DanielsMark Daniels's Weblog
- 2005 Aug 26
You may have heard the news report yesterday about the court victory for environmental activist groups like "Friends of the Earth" and Greenpeace...along with Boulder, CO...and three California towns. They're suing Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The two government agencies provide loans, and insure billions of investor dollars for development projects overseas. The charge is that the power plants in question emit greenhouse gases that the environmentalists allege cause global warming.
But the problem here is more than purely scientific. First of all, global warming is largely a myth. Like any urban legend, a myth becomes fact through repeated reportage. Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen puts it this way, in an article posted at CNSNews.com: "Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief." He continues, "Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by 'all scientists' -- all, except for a handful of corrupted heretics."
Alarmist predictions of more hurricanes, the catastrophic rise in sea levels, the melting of the global poles, and even the plunge into another ice age are not scientifically supported, Lindzen says. Truth is, the Artic region has heated and cooled cyclically, over the millennia. The Antarctic region is, in fact, rapidly COOLING--not warming! The only consensus that Lindzen said exists on the issue of climate change is the impact of the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to limit greenhouse gases, which the U.S. does not support.
And this is the key, in my estimation. I suspect the motivation behind the lawsuits against the government is fueled by a desire for retribution against the current Administration for not signing on to the Kyoto consensus. The bottom line is this: Americans have been fed questionable science in the name of politics and ideology before--remember Zero Population Growth (ZPG)? Doubtless, we will be deceived again in the future. But if we are to learn anything from this week’s ruling, it is this: the impact of one activist judge can be staggering…in terms beyond mere millions or billions of dollars. A jurist with an agenda can create precedents that bankrupt our government, curtail our freedoms, and derail our economy.
Suddenly, the John Roberts nomination seems even MORE important than it was, only yesterday.