Submitted by Lynn, Dec 21, 2007 10:20

While your story about faith is indeed moving, it is not what I mean when I say that your view of global warming is akin to "religion." I should clarify: I gather from your arguments that you attribute the climate changes in your region to global warming (when you should consider other possible causes for such phenomena), and that you attribute our use of fossil fuels as the cause of global warming. That belief is what I am calling religion. I use this term to mean that people with these views believe them because someone tells them too, not because the science evidence actually supports it. Is this not taking something on faith? I never said that global-warming-as-caused-by-humans is a true religion, either. The faith you write about in the story about your father, in which you suggest that his avoidance of the accident came through divine intervention, is what I would call true religion. Of course the atheists I know would argue that this was all coincidence, so your believing that it was something greater is faith. Science cannot prove that.

My first, sarcastic response came from my initial reaction to your reasoning. I responded that way because your use of personal experience to measure global climate changes is so fallacious. With your reasoning, what must we conclude about the recent snowfalls in St. Louis (more snow than has fallen in a long while)? Our lifespan on earth is simply too short to accurately gauge climate change over millennia. Even if you were 500 years old, you would still not be old enough to see a significant shift. The absurdity of assuming your limited experience with weather in one region in the United States indicates global changes seemed so absurd to me that ridicule was the only appropriate response. However, your comments have chastened me to use only logical appeal.

I will instead argue that while we may have been seeing climate changes across the globe for the past fifty years, science does not support the assumption that we humans have caused it. Rather, we are experiencing catastrophic global climate change, one that is programmed in nature, and would occur regardless of human being's existence on the planet. I give you another website to consider: http://www.look-to-the-skies.com/global_warming.htm.

Considering the extreme cost of government policies to reduce emissions and to find alternatives to fossil fuels, we should, as a nation, take a serious look at whether or not they are fiscally responsible. If reducing emissions will produce only insignificant results in stopping catastrophic global climate change, we shouldn't be wasting tax-payer dollars on it.

One other comment: I hope this does not apply to you, but I mention it anyway to show why the "global warming" scare tactics of politicians like Al Gore are ultimately hollow. While he goes about the globe to preach the religion of human-caused global warming, he burns fossil fuels like mad in his private jet and uses ridiculous amounts of electricity in his home. This hypocrisy is what defeats the cause, as few environmentalists are really willing to live the life they preach, a life without the modern comforts that require the consumption and burning of fossil fuels. We need them to live, period. That's why The Objective Standard created the slogan, "Exploit the earth, or die." You can view their philosophy at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/exploit-the-earth-or-die.asp.

P.S. While I am correcting spelling mistakes, I ought to correct my own typo in my last posting: It's insignificant, not "insignificant."

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.