By Tom Quiner
“GLOBAL warming has slowed.”
This is the lead sentence in The Economist’s new essay on
global warming climate change.
The magazine has generally supported the conviction that global warming exists, that it is caused by man, and that we should do something about it.
Nonetheless, they acknowledge in their June 20th essay that the data is not being cooperative:
“Since 1998, the warmest year of the twentieth century, temperatures have not kept up with computer models that seemed to project steady warming; they’re perilously close to falling beneath even the lowest projections”.
In other words, the doomsday scenario presented by Al Gore and his crowd is crumbling.
In other words, the debate IS NOT OVER.
The Economist is a sober magazine that presents intelligent reporting and opinion on a panoply of subjects from a left-of-center perspective.
Climate Change evangelists call for draconian policies that will hurt the common man quite a bit, policies such as carbon taxes and emission treaties. The Economist admits that the success of these radical initiatives depends on damning data.
Unfortunately, the data looks awfully tepid, says The Economist:
“The reality is that the already meagre prospects of these policies, in America at least, will be devastated if temperatures do fall outside the lower bound of the projections that environmentalists have used to create a panicked sense of emergency. Whether or not dramatic climate-policy interventions remain advisable, they will become harder, if not impossible, to sell to the public, which will feel, not unreasonably, that the scientific and media establishment has cried wolf.”
The Obama government’s “panicked sense of emergency” has led to draconian new regulations from the EPA which target coal. The Heritage Foundation says that if these regulations stand, it will be the death of the coal industry.
How will the death of coal affect the common man? Says Heritage, it would:
• Destroy more than 500,000 jobs,
• Cause a family of four to lose more than $1,400 in annual income, and
• Increase electricity prices by 20 percent.
All of this would happen because of liberal policy based on dubious science.
Global Warming Climate Change is more religion than science. Liberals continue to maintain the faith even as science fails to support their dogma.
The Economist, too, supports the thesis that liberal policy designed to mitigate so-called climate change will exact a humanitarian toll on the poor:
“Dramatic warming may exact a terrible price in terms of human welfare, especially in poorer countries. But cutting emissions enough to put a real dent in warming may also put a real dent in economic growth. This could also exact a terrible humanitarian price, especially in poorer countries.”
Science does not support the radical view held by liberals in regard to climate change.
Until it does, climate change agnosticism is the better religion to embrace.