My problem with global warming is not Al Gore. He’s worked hard. But frankly, I don’t think he should be awarded the Peace Prize. If Gore’s climate-change work is truly meritorious, he should have been placed in one of the scientific categories.
In a broader sense, the issue for me boils down to:
a) Whether in fact global warming is a manmade problem;
b) With so many dissenters, does this viewpoint really pass scientific muster?
c) In the history of history I have always believed that men and women are part of the solution, not the problem; and
d) Nearly all policies associated with global warming “solutions” are inimical to economic growth, prosperity, and progress.
Think of it this way: The “cap” of “cap and trade” can literally prevent economies from powering forward. In other words, growth requires power, and caps could set back both. That really troubles me.
In addition, the “solutions” have a heavy governmental footprint. It all smacks of central planning. It is the opposite of the economic freedom and free-market capitalism that has shown us the path to prosperity. I don’t want limits to growth and I don’t want central planning. Instead, I want entrepreneurship and freedom and Schumpeterian gales of creative destruction.
So, if there is a true climate-change problem, I do not want an economy-retarding solution. That would be far worse than the so-called problem.