The Economist Breaks with the Climate Orthodoxy
All this climate silliness could be regarded as comical at this point if so many – particularly scientifically illiterate politicians – didn't still believe -- much like the cardinals in Brecht’s Galileo -- in the warming religion.
Principal among these scientific illiterates is our president, whose college grades, unlike Al Gore’s and just about everybody else’s, remain a state secret reminiscent of the Politburo. I would be willing to bet my house, however, that his scientific qualifications are somewhere between non-existent and embarrassing.
So he must rely on the advice of supposed experts. But who are they? Usually scientists and business people who stand to profit by emphasizing the perils of warming. (Maybe he should listen to the Russians -- he seems to like them.)
Even more dangerous – and closer to Obama’s heart – are the bureaucrats of the Environmental Protection Agency. It’s hard to imagine what they think when they read -- if they read -- an article like the recent one in The Economist. Could it conceivably make them question what they do? I doubt it.
Last Friday the Washington Post’s WonkTalk asked: Is the EPA ready to tackle climate change? In a video, their Brad Plumer -- who apparently is convinced CO2 causes global warming -- noted that Congress is not likely to do anything about climate. It will be up to the EPA, working under the guidance of the White House, to tighten rules and regulations around all sorts of emissions to protect us from what they view as an over-heated Armageddon.
If I were in the energy business, I’d have my lawyers ready. The recent research should be very useful to them. But the question remains – is anybody listening? Or will we all be broke first?
(Thumbnail image on PJM homepage by Shutterstock.com.)