As mentioned before, I don't hold a strong opinion either way on Global Warming because I don't know. Most ideas on limiting pollution, such as a cap and trade method, essentially licenses polluting, which doesn't make much sense. It should be illegal for any company to pollute my air, my water, and my land, and if they do I should be allowed recourse in the courts. Simple.
I am always skeptical though when politicians (Al Gore) attempt to use fear into making us accept more government. Given that "going green" to "save the earth" has become the common mantra among most politicians, governments, and the main stream media, its only fair to give light to those in the know who disagree. Historically, governments haven't proven themselves right about a whole lot.
It's reported here that Chad Myers on CNN had some interesting opinions on Global Warming.
At the end of the article it mentions a previous CNN meteorologist who attack Al Gore's film. This individual quickly "recanted" his opinions after a public out-cry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I stay somewhere in the middle on this issue. Those who are anti-Global Warming Theory are usually funded by corporations that want to pollute. Either way though, be it human-caused or natural-caused or both, it follows that since people are the result of a certain type of ennvironment, we should be protecting that environment. In other words, even if global warming is part of a natural cycle, we still need to protect our optimum environment.
"It should be illegal for any company to pollute my air, my water, and my land, and if they do I should be allowed recourse in the courts. Simple."
I agree with this.
Post a Comment