Commentary: Little Objectivity on Climate Change
Dear Editor:
I continue to be dismayed by the non-objective approach to the global warming/climate change issue as consistently presented by your newsletter and EPA. I just submitted a brief comment to the following article encouraging people to consider alternative or dissenting opinions rather than blindly accept what EPA and other self-serving organizations write and conclude about global warming:
EPA Rejects 10 Endangerment Challenge Petitions
I would similarly ask you to remove the blinders and consider the valuable opinions of the numerous scientists who hold to an alternative opinion to that which is so dogmatically adhered to by EPA. If you have not already reviewed the assembled comments in the U.S. Senate Minority Report, you may wish to take a look (click on this link to go to the report: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/un_scientists_speakout.pdf.
Unlike EPA’s sources, most of the scientists quoted have no self-serving reasons to continue promoting the carbon control agenda. It is so obvious that many people and corporations have jumped on board in this movement because it will benefit them financially, yield more power to them or their organization, or help accomplish goals related to the redistribution of the world’s wealth.
I recognize that some people do honestly believe that mankind is causing global warming so we must also be able to stop it by implementing drastic changes in the way we live. Sadly, it is true that false ideas and theories can be believed by so many people when they are repeated often enough and portrayed in such sophisticated ways by people and organizations that have power and money (federal money consumed internally by agencies as well as money that flows into federal contracts, stimulus projects, etc) .
This following link takes you to another report that further demonstrates the fallacy of the consensus argument. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/consensus.pdf
In my opinion, we are making a huge mistake to continue down this pathway to control carbon emissions and to add regulation after regulation that will adversely impact our nation. Resources have been diverted from programs that are much more important to the well-being of mankind. The coming increased costs of electricity which will accompany EPA’s onslaught of the coal electric power industry will severely impact everyone. How much will it cost to air-condition your home after all of EPA new coal plant rules are implemented?
I would like to point out that I have worked in the environmental field for over 30 years, the past 18 as the director of the Kansas Bureau of Waste Management. I have observed many trends in environmental regulatory issues over the years and the move to control carbon is by far the most political and least scientific. As I began this note, I repeat that I am frustrated and dismayed to see how the once noble pursuits of environmental protection and good stewardship have turned into deceptive fanaticism driven by non-meritorious motives.
Bill Bider