Unlike most people who appear to have a settled opinion on the topic, I am both baffled and dubious about the validity of the theory of global warming – a theory whose time appears to have come as world leaders pontificate on the subject of climate change.  As I attempt to grasp the subject, I stumble immediately upon the words used to characterize it.  What exactly does “climate change” mean?  Does it mean changes in temperature?  Or, weather patterns?  Or, both?  And, doesn’t the climate always change?

 

If we are speaking only about temperatures, there are a number of questions that immediately come to mind.   How accurate are temperature readings today versus their historical counterparts?  How can we be certain that the placement of the measuring devices has been consistent over the  decades and centuries for which we have statistical temperature data?  Assuming its reliability and equivalency, do we have enough data over a long enough period of time to reach any meaningful conclusions.

 

If we are speaking about weather patterns, still more questions arise.  Are we considering only violent weather like tornados and hurricanes?  Or, are we considering rainfall and snowfall amounts?  Are we viewing this data from a global perspective?  Or, are we examining the data by region or locality?  Again, since weather patterns are in a constant state of flux, how can we be certain that changes in patterns experienced today have not been experienced in the past?

 

Ultimately, any conclusions to be reached must be based upon analysis of the data collected.  In analyzing data, are the proponents or detractors of the theory of global warming actually manipulating that data to reach their desired conclusions?  Can a reasonable person have any degree of certainty that the information being presented by either side in this dispute is accurate?

 

There is, however, one factor that does influence my thinking on global warming and climate change:  the solutions being proposed.  It seems that the answer to this  problem, as has been the case with other such issues, is to encourage people to change their behavior and that that encouragement should come in the form of taxes and regulations.

 

Now, most people hold no particular fondness toward increased taxes or regulations.  But, governments love them.  As taxes and regulations grow more pervasive, so does the size and scope of government.  As government expands, personal liberties diminish.  For that reason alone, I am suspicious about the theory of global warming.

 

Another thought that leads me toward disbelief in the theory of global warming is the track record of those who are its proponents.  It occurs to me that those touting global warming as settled fact are the same group that pitched the validity of the theory of peak oil.  For those who do not remember, it was not that long ago that scientific groups around the globe concluded that we had reached or were very near reaching peak oil production and that global supplies would continue to diminish from that point forward creating yet another crisis that would require government intervention to save us all from living in caves.  Like the global warming crisis of today, the answer then was to raise taxes on oil producers and consumers so that money could be diverted to development of renewable energy sources.

 

Today, we rarely if ever hear about the theory of peak oil.  Perhaps sometime in the not to distant future, the theory of global warming will be but a memory.