The Moral Case Against Global Warming Policies
How strange that someone would make a moral case against global warming. The tendency is to promote it as a just cause. Global warming is presented as a problem that we should be doing everything possible to solve or life as we know it will cease to exist. The so-called “science” that global warming supporters use to justify their position is anything but settled. New evidence is constantly being discovered that puts bigger and bigger holes in global warming theories, not in the laws, but in the theories. The most ridiculous of these theories is that global warming, if it is occurring at all, is caused by humans.
The goal here is not to review the science that casts an overwhelming shadow of doubt on the accuracy of global warming theories, but it would be a waste not to share it. Not enough people know this information as it is.
It is probably safe to say that there is no life on the other planets in our solar system. Most places are too hot, too cold, or lack an atmosphere like ours. Most likely, there are no aliens driving carbon-producing SUVs on our neighboring planets. It just so happens that Pluto is experiencing a warming. There was a storm on Jupiter that scientists believe is due to climate change. Our closest neighbor, Mars, has been experiencing rising temperatures and melting as a result. Either our hideous carbon footprints are so gigantic that they’re affecting the entire solar system, or it’s the sun.
Al Gore’s claim to Hollywood trophies and the Nobel Peace Prize is due entirely to An inconvenient truth–conveniently, it has few truths. Gore’s biggest case for linking human activity to global warming is the theory that carbon dioxide levels are directly responsible for increases in temperature. The graphics and animations of him certainly looked sharp and gave off an aura of authority. However, CO2 and rising temperatures are not related in the way Gore suggests. He would have you think that temperatures are rising as a result of rising CO2 levels. Statistically, the warmest periods in Earth’s history occurred about 800 years before a rise in CO2; that means CO2 levels rose after temperatures rose. In other words, adjusting our “carbon emissions” may not affect global temperatures.
It would also be wise to look back at elementary school science. We know that plant life thrives in high CO2 environments. The greener there is on earth, the better. Increased plant life will lead to increased wildlife and the problem of starving nations could be more easily solved; the more places for agriculture, the more food we can produce.
That is part of the science and has been known for years. Global warming fanatics have ignored it and the public has blindly accepted their bogus science. Because? Because we are morally good. We want to do the right thing and presenting global warming as a result of human activity puts the moral responsibility in our hands. Inconveniently for global warming fearmongers, the war on global warming is largely immoral and human activity is likely not the cause of global warming.
Among the most immoral propositions in the war against global warming is a cap on carbon emissions from developing countries. The people there have no access to electricity, clean running water, or any of the luxuries we take for granted. Who are we in the developed world to tell these nations that they must adhere to “green” practices when we have built our lives on a carbon emission system? It is immoral to forcefully keep people in poverty because of scientific theories. We have no right as a person or nation to tell any other person or nation how to live or run their own country.
The big ethanol link is another derivative of global warming. A third of our corn crop in the United States this year will be consumed by ethanol production. Sounds like a lot, except it will account for 3 percent of our total fuel use while the price of other grains and foods rises. This reduces the amount of food we send to the starving. And if you didn’t already know, it takes more fuel to produce and transport ethanol than ethanol can provide. A gigantic losing strategy that only makes it harder for Americans to buy food and reduces the food supply for the hungry and needy.
This war on global warming is largely a means to steal more money from ordinary people. Government regulations and subsidies that have come from this war, like carbon taxes and subsidized initiatives like corn-based ethanol, will make us all poorer. The carbon tax is touted as a great idea so that evil car drivers can pay for their crimes against the planet. Income tax was also sold to us as a means to tax those wicked rich and last I checked, the IRS rips us all off every other week. These taxes are simply a means for one group to steal money from another group for their own agenda. A carbon tax is not supported by scientific facts and will be very destructive to ordinary people who depend on their cars for a living.
Absolutely no government legislation or regulation as a result of global warming is going to solve the “problem” or improve the situation for any of us. Supporting the government’s global warming initiatives is tantamount to starving and robbing other people. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on anything is another way to ensure that the problem is never solved. The war on drugs has not reduced drug use, but has imprisoned huge numbers of people for non-aggressive crimes and created a black market in which the truly bad guys profit.
If everyone who preaches the global warming gospel were truly humanitarians, they would stop using the government to do their bidding. The fact is that more people are going to be worse off and perhaps die because of our policies regarding an unproven scientific theory. Those who believe that global warming is a crisis can act without using government force. Automakers have responded with hybrid vehicles, better gas mileage, and even all electric vehicles. No party is worse off for these improvements and actions. That’s the moral way to deal with global warming.