The issue of man-made global warming has recently gained a lot of attention around the world. The media is full of stories on research that supports the theory of man-made global warming, as well as stories detailing worst case scenarios on how an increase in global temperature could affect our planet. They often neglect the fact that there is a wide variation in scientific opinion on why the Earth’s temperature is rising. There are many groups with both ideological and economic interests in seeing drastic action taken in order to curb CO₂ emissions, and they have done a great job of moving the publics attention past the debate over the causes of global warming, and onto the debate over what to do about it.

This issue is very important to governments all around the world. With public attention shifting toward this issue in many countries, governments will find that their electoral success depends heavily on how they choose to deal with the issue. There are also enormous economic and public policy implications in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Given the enormous cost of implementing greenhouse gas reductions, it would seem reasonable that all sides of the debate are presented so that the public can make an informed decision on the issue. Yet the debate has been stifled in recent years.

It now seems taboo to have a public discussion on the causes of global warming. This is especially true for politicians. It has now become political suicide to even question the causes of climate change. It is for this reason that Sarah Palin has stated that the causes of climate change are not important, even though this is an issue in which understanding the cause of the problem is essential to finding a solution. However, this is not only an issue in the public sphere. Skeptics of the man-made global warming theory are rarely given the opportunity to make their voices heard in the mainstream media these days, reinforcing the view that there is a scientific consensus on the issue, when there clearly is not. Environmental activists, such as David Suzuki, have been at the forefront of this movement to suppress dissenting viewpoints. In 2007, Suzuki stormed out of a radio interview in Toronto when the host pointed out that not all the science supports Suzuki's viewpoint. Mr. Suzuki has also publicly called for political leaders who ignore climate change to be put in jail. Not exactly the kind of rhetoric one would expect from someone who is so certain that all the available scientific data supports his conclusions.

I am not saying that human activity has had no effect on the Earth's climate, I'm saying that I don't know. A healthy dose of skepticism is very much needed in this debate. However, I think if we apply the principal of Occam's razor to the discussion, the man-made global warming theory just doesn't hold up. Occam's razor basically states that the simplest solution is often the best solution. So what's the simpler solution: the earth goes through natural periods of warming and cooling, which we know to be true, or, as a result of human activity temperatures are rising at such a dramatic pace that we are headed toward a man-made Armageddon?

The question that we should be asking is who actually gains from promoting global warming hysteria? The answer lies in the usual motivations for promoting political and religious movements: money and power. Money is the easiest motivation to explain. First, businesses have been cashing in on the publics concerns aboutclimate change by promoting their products as "green" solutions. Second, governments around the world are putting a lot of money into climate change research, so it is in the best interest of scientists to promote the man-made global warming theory in order to cash in on lucrative government contracts. "The cause of climate change is unknown.… In the meanwhile, the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some," says French scientist and politician Claude Allegre.

As for political interests, there have definitely been many political parties around the world that have gained support by promoting their environmental policies. However, I suspect that there is more going on here than meets the eye. I think that supporters of communism took a setback after the Soviet Union collapsed, but that they've finally found an issue that makes people actually welcome a greater degree of government involvement in their lives and in the economy. The true environmentalists are also happy because people care a lot more about global warming than they do about the rain forest (which seemed to be their issue of choice in the 1990s). Global warming is an issue that sticks in the minds of the public and a lot of people have an interest in ensuring it stays that way.

Many of the proposed solutions to man-made global warming place a heavy cost on society. It means spending a huge amount of tax payer dollars to fundamentally alter the nature of our economy, at a time when the world economy is on shaky ground. It also means forcing people to live their lives in a certain way, despite the fact that if people who really believe that man-made global warming is an issue took the responsibility to adapt their behavior according to their convictions, the government would not need to force them to make the changes in the first place.  When our economy and our liberty is at stake, should we not at least have a vibrant public debate on the issue?

Further Reading

Share Link:

• Add New
• Search
• RSS

Comments (0)

Write comment

Your Contact Details:

Name:

Email: do not notifynotify

Website:

Comment:

Title:

UBBCode:         -color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Message:

Security

Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Joomla components by Compojoom