1. Intellectual honesty requires that the issue be referred to as “Global
Warming” and not “Climate Change”. The theory is that human-generated CO2 is
causing the world to warm up, not that humans are causing the climate to
change. The climate is always changing. It was changing long before humans
existed and will be changing long after humans become extinct.
2. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a hot/emotional topic because it
is perceived as a potential excuse for more government intervention in the
economy, that is, for a more powerful government.
3. Due to the above point, the more libertarian-minded a person the more
likely that he will disbelieve the AGW theory and be on the lookout for
evidence that refutes or is inconsistent with the theory, whereas the
stronger a person’s belief in a big role for government the more likely that
he will be a proponent of the AGW theory and on the lookout for evidence that
supports the theory.
4. It should be a question for science, not politics, and the science is
definitely not settled. There are very knowledgeable people on both sides of
the debate, the models that link global temperature to prior changes in the
amount atmospheric CO2 have generally not worked, and in any case the science
is never settled (it is constantly evolving).
5. The real issue is pollution, not global warming or climate change.
Pollution is a serious problem in many parts of the world.
6. Pollution is a property rights issue, or at least it should be. In
countries where there is no or minimal respect for private property rights
and particularly in countries with very powerful or all-powerful governments,
pollution tends to be a bigger problem and the frequency of ecological
disasters tends to be greater.
7. In a free country, the amount of pollution that was deemed acceptable
would be determined by the law courts, not government regulation. It’s likely
that the amount deemed acceptable when dealt with as a property rights issue
by the law courts would generally be less than the amount allowed by current
government regulations.
8. It is often the case that one side in the debate labels the other side
in ways that are designed to make the other side look bad. For example,
referring to AGW skeptics as “deniers” or “denialists” and AGW advocates as
“alarmists” or “hysterics”. This is a form of ad hominem attack. A person who
uses the aforementioned words to describe the other side may as well hold up
a sign that reads “I’m not looking at the issue objectively”.
9. Characterising the issue as believers versus non-believers in climate
change is a deliberate attempt to mislead (it’s a type of “straw man” argument)
because there is no debate as to whether or not the climate is changing.
Everyone with a modicum of general knowledge knows that the climate has
always been changing and will always change. The issue under debate is the
effect of man on the climate.
10. A scientist making an honest and rigorous attempt to determine the
effect of man on climate must necessarily analyse the other influences on
climate, chief among them being the sun. Furthermore, he must deal with
questions like: Given that the Earth’s climate has always been cycling, with
long periods of cooling followed by long periods of warming, and that the
Earth was warmer during pre-industrialisation periods when human activity
could not have had any effect whatsoever on climate, why should the latest
warming cycle be attributed primarily to human activity?
11. Even if we assume that Global Warming is still happening, that it is a
problem to be reckoned with and that it is caused by Man, the claim that the
best solution is for the government to become more involved in policing
economic activity is, at best, the triumph of hope and naïveté over
experience, logic and good economic theory. If history has taught us anything
it is that when the government tries to fix a problem by getting more involved
in the economy it either causes the original problem to become worse or
creates an even bigger problem elsewhere.
12. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can
stand by itself. (Thomas Jefferson)
