Posted by
Bill Crawford on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 9:11:07 PM
So the EPA has declared CO2 a "pollutant". Of course, this is a policy declaration as a precursor for setting up a cap and trade market for carbon credits. Nobody at EPA disputes this.
Understand, there is no contradiction in the minds of those passing this off with Obama's stem cell lecture on how policy should not get in the way of science. These people think that global warming is anthropomorphic, and the debate is over.
And if it isn't, so what? You can talk to people like that until you are blue in the face, and you get nothing back but blank stares and reiterated conclusions.
It doesn't matter what you bring up. The lack of tropospheric computer modeling, the continuous underestimation of the power of the environment to recover from sudden changes, the immense measurable power of the sun to affect us in comparison with our hydrocarbon emissions.
Where is the science on global warming? Some will say it's a "consensus", others, like Al Gore, will announce that those who aren't on board are "flat earthers".
The warming itself is not in dispute. We have been in a warming period for twenty years that rivals the middle of the twentieth century, although this winter may show that is changing. The big question is, what is causing it and how much of it is us? It's one thing to have a robust debate on that, it's entirely another to reach a conclusion anyway. And it adds to the error when you fund policy based on said conclusions.
That's MY money, too, and I have a problem with that. This isn't policy based on science. It is dogma, and it is the height of irresponsibility.