Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
What motivates the deniers, I wonder? It is certainly easier to convince yourself that you are not doing anything wrong...
|
I've said already that I'm neither a denier (or any other type of nylon) or an advocate of the science of AGW. I do believe the planet is getting warmer, as it has been since the end of the last ice age with a few brief interruptions (i.e. the "Little Ice Age").
But I digress, my real point in responding is not to argue science, because I see much of this thread as pointless; I doubt a single mind will change from an exercise like this. Rather, it's the politics of AGW that scares the hell out of me. I believe that AGW is being used as an excuse for creating new taxes and new pyramid schemes. Cap and Trade has the potential to become one of the largest trading markets ever developed and for what? Trillions of dollars trading something of no intrinsic value. That's insanity. Then you talk about BTU or Carbon Taxes and you have a system that will allow the government an escape-proof way of taxing everyone at every level, with a disparate impact on the working class and poor. And what will we get for our money? More government that's more intrusive into our lives that ignores the Constitution. In 1930 the Federal government spending was 3% of US GDP, now it's roughly 24% of US GDP. Are we all better off? Do we have more liberty because of it?
Anyway, I don't know if AGW is real or not. I believe the science behind Peak Oil is undeniable. If both lead me to take the same steps in reducing my consumption of fossil fuels and creating a more sustainable lifestyle, does it really matter what I believe or why? By reducing my needs for natural gas, gasoline and electricity derived from carbon fuels, I'm reducing my exposure to the risk of rising energy prices and mitigating the impacts a scheme like cap and trade or a carbon tax will have on me while simultaneously taking money out of the government's pocket. What doesn't sound appealing about that solution?