Dear Congress Person,
There are two central questions as regards the issue of global warming. First, is it occurring as a result of human activity? Second, if it is occurring, what should be done about it?
On the first question, the essence of real science is to question and test new theories–and the theory of global warming, no matter what its fervent advocates may claim, is not settled science. The quest for the truth, regardless of its popularity or trendiness, demands that data continue to be gathered and studied, challenged and tested. History is replete with examples of “scientific facts,” loudly declared as true by–yes, scientists, of their time–which, some decades or centuries later, turned out to be–just dead wrong! The collection of data that is being used to advance the idea of man-made global warming is too recent to be uncritically accepted as truth. There are additionally some 650 recognized scientists who are opposed to the theory.
On the second question, if humanity is causing some gradual warming of the planet over time, what should be done about it–if anything? The advocates of global warming argue as follows: humanity has caused, and is causing, the earth to become warmer; this will raise sea levels and inflict many kinds of damage on the planet–so, let the entire world unite to reverse, to undo all the effects of this human change to the world. The changes envisioned, to date, include using much less energy from the fossil fuels of coal, oil and natural gas and supplanting them with renewable, but costly, energy sources. The greater the change away from use of fossil fuels, the greater the cost–to all the average men and women of the world who happen to be alive today. Even if global warming is real, that does not mean that the people of the world have any duty to impoverish themselves, to make their lives harder and poorer, in order to satisfy the demands of those who wish to make their anti-warming crusade the supreme goal of all people.
Californians, Americans, and all the people of the world, are entitled to do their own cost-benefit analysis on this question. How much should people pay to reduce global warming? (Assuming its validity, for the sake of argument). Individual human beings have the right to assert their own interests. Perhaps many would rather wait and see if the sun and the earth’s orbit about it are the driving force for climate change, rather than a slight increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, than to plunge themselves and all for whom they care into a poverty and a misery that would look drearily familiar to a medieval peasant. To keep our self-respect as free people, those Americans who don’t care to go in the same direction as the stampeding herd of environmentalists have a duty to speak out.
The United States is still a sovereign nation. Our Constitution does not appoint councils of scientists and environmentalists, or world-government advocates, or United Nations panels, however well-intentioned all of them may be, to control our destiny. That is still the right of each of us, and it is our duty to maintain it bravely.
It is therefore the position of the Southern California Republican Women and Men that the California State Budget cannot support what we believe to be unnecessary regulations and costs to the tax payers in the State in a time when the State is overwhelmed with debt. We hope that you will take appropriate action to keep unnecessary Global Warming issues out of our California regulations, fees, taxes, and budget.
Membership of Southern California Republican Women and Men.
0 Responses to “SCRW&M Position Paper 1, re: Global Warming”