In recent conversations with people about climate change, I ask these 3 questions.
1. Do you believe that the wealthy and powerful have too much influence over government policy and legislation? (most people on both sides of the political spectrum answer yes)
2. If there was a study published on handguns, would you accept the findings of that study as legitimate if the funding for the study came from the NRA? (I am very pro gun rights and even I would consider a study like that to be biased)
3. Two part question: what would you say if I told you that the Rockefeller Foundation has spent over $100 million on climate research, and the official position of the Rockefeller Foundation is that they want global climate regulations enforced by the United Nations? What would you say if I told you that British Petroleum (yes, BP) has also spent over $100 million on climate research, and that they advocate carbon pricing (cap and trade)?
Basically, I break it down like this: you can EITHER believe that the wealthy and powerful have too much influence over government policy and legislation, OR you can believe that scientific research *funded by the wealthy and powerful* is gospel and should be used as a guide for government policy and legislation. You can't believe both of those things.
With all that being said, I am not claiming that human activity doesn't have a negative effect on the environment. Of course human activity has a negative effect on the environment. Only a fool would deny that. But I do believe that the degree of that effect is being exaggerated by political and corporate interests.
borndead1 wrote:
