Patrick Moore, ecologist and former prominent Greenpeace member who helped found the organization, had some strong words regarding anthropogenic climate change in a recent testimony before the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Subcommittee on Oversight:
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. [Moore’s emphasis]
But he was just getting warmed up:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95–100% probability.” But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment,” as determined by the IPCC contributors. [Moore’s emphasis]
The earth’s climate is extremely complex, and while much has been learned about it over the years, there is still a vast lack of understanding. Climate is affected by many different things, including humans. But to suggest that humans are the sole cause of climate change is absurd.
Nonetheless, the culling of carbon emissions to combat alleged catastrophic climate change continues. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently has coal in its sights, which provides approximately 40 percent of America’s electricity generation. Increased regulatory burden on coal will serve only to increase electricity prices and, subsequently, harm consumers. Heritage’s Nick Loris points out:
By significantly limiting the use of an affordable energy source, the EPA’s regulations will increase electricity prices for American households. Since low-income families spend a larger proportion of their income on energy, a tax that increases energy prices would disproportionately affect the budgets of the poorest American families.
Americans will be forced to pay more for energy prices if the alarmists have their way. Reacting hastily to unmerited fears of climate change alarmists’ can lead to crafting bad public policy that can actually make people poorer. Policies pertaining to environmental challenges should be based on sound science, not ideology, with an emphasis on free-market policies. Those two aspects will help America prosper while simultaneously being a good steward of its resources.
