To The Herald-Whig:
On July 6, The Herald-Whig reprinted a Chicago Tribune editorial headlined "A carbon tax that could put money in your pocket."
If you believe that headline for longer than it took you to read it, you probably also believed, "If you like your doctor and insurance plan, you can keep your doctor and insurance plan."
A worldwide carbon tax/carbon exchange was, and still is, the holy grail for Democrats and rabid environmentalists. Suggesting that we will save money by endorsing what could become the biggest tax in human history should be journalist malpractice.
It could also become the greatest worldwide socialist redistribution of wealth. The only people who might have more money in their pockets would be Third World governments, paid for by developed nations like our own.
Keep in mind, it has been estimated that it would cost trillions of dollars to lower the average global temperature a fraction of a degree, and that is not a sure thing by any means.
We obviously should be highly skeptical of any initiative costing trillions of dollars. However, skepticism about catastrophic climate change quickly became taboo as this theory not only developed a life of its own, it became a religion of sorts to hard-left environmentalists.
To question it brought comparisons to Holocaust deniers, which is probably the reason why the global warmists adopted the term "climate deniers" in order to exploit the commonality in terms.
We don't deny climate change; we question the likelihood of human-caused catastrophic climate change.
Many respected climatologists, meteorologists and geologists would love to debate the climate alarmists.
Unfortunately these dissenting scientists are shouted down, ridiculed or even threatened with legal action when they challenge apocalyptic climate change predictions while the alarmists hide behind the claim of "settled science."
Any phenomena as complex as the changing climate, which is affected by everything from solar flares, sun spots, ocean currents, atmospheric gases, clouds and the wobble of the earth in orbit, to name a few, may never be reasonably predictable far into the future.
Unanswered questions and inconsistencies about this theory abound, but for a moment consider just one significant fact.
In geological time, during the late ordovician period, there was an ice age while CO2 concentrations were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm! If high CO2 levels are primarily causative of global warming as claimed, how could that be possible?
William J. Postle