It will probably come as a shock to no one that I consider myself skeptical about global warming, or “climate change,” as it is now called.
I admit I am not a climate scientist. Nor do I have more than a cursory understanding of meteorology or computer modelling. My skepticism essentially has two, simple prongs:
1. Why do we assume government-funded research is objective when corporate research is not?
2. Why do we assume heavy-handed government solutions are the answer to environmental problems when governments have such a sketchy track record of environmental policy as compared to private property rights?
I admit I’m also confused by concern over carbon dioxide when to me it’s plant food, not a pollutant. Nor do I understand reducing one’s “carbon footprint” to be “carbon neutral” or some such. Isn’t carbon the stuff of life? Nor do I find the tactics of the uber-wealthy left, like Al Gore (private jet, huge house, etc.) intellectually honest nor convincing. It all seems a little hypocritical to me.
The following articles below (and a couple of online video clips) are just a small smattering of the many opinions and positions opposed to the orthodox, mainstream views of “climate change.”
http://mises.org/story/664 (This article addresses carbon dioxide as a pollutant.)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff181.html (I highly recommend this lengthy but interesting view of global warming skepticism, summarizing the thoughts of several dissenting scientists.)
http://www.climateaudit.org/ (This website has more serious scientific information than most of the others listed here.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0mK3QrnBD8A (Glenn Beck’s Climate of Fear special, aired last year, questions the government solutions and the government research.)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=z04XMXc7zJg (A speech by Christopher Horner on his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.)