Senators Chastise ExxonMobil

From a column by Robert Novak on Townhall.com:

Two senior senators, Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Republican Olympia Snowe of Maine, are pressuring ExxonMobil Corp. to stop funding scientists who question the conventional liberal wisdom on global warming.

So, two senators are trying to strong-arm a private company into signing on to their agenda. Are they working from a page in the Jesse Jackson play-book? Will ExxonMobil have to contribute to their campaign funds to get them off its back? Or do the senators actually think that there is something we can do or not do that will significantly affect climate change? I hope not. In my view, ants have about as much chance of significantly changing the global climate as humans do.

In an Oct. 27 letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex W. Tillerson in Irving, Texas, the senators charged that the oil company's position has "made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy." Actually, U.S. government policy, as set by President Bush, is skeptical about global warming.

An oil company is hampering the diplomacy of the United States? Whoa! Must be some powerful company. Anyway, all we need to demonstrate moral clarity is the biggest weapons.

"We must request," said the Rockefeller-Snowe letter, "that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth."

One person's truth is another person's myth. I think the jury is still out on just who is promoting a myth.

Even if the global warming alarmists are right, that the effects of global warming will dramatically affect our lives, they have no way of knowing if the effects will be good or bad for us. So what if half of Florida will be covered with water? It has been that way before. It's not going to happen overnight; people will have plenty of time to migrate to higher ground.

Think about the economic boost to the inland parts of the state as the water rises. All that property will spend years as waterfront property (before it becomes underwater property) and will command high prices and will attract millions of tourists with deep pockets. Think about the economic gain from new construction as houses and businesses have to be rebuilt to replace those swamped by the rising oceans. That is, think about these things if you are one of those that believe that the devastation caused by natural disasters can be a net economic gain.

Seriously, why is it assumed that warmer is bad? Many parts of the world might benefit immensely from warmer temperatures. And how do we know that there won't be an offsetting natural phenomenon -- like the sun growing cooler? It is inconceivable to me that intelligent people can believe that global warming is among the greatest dangers that we face. So I have to believe that they have ulterior motives.

Let's wait until the first coastal city is underwater before getting all worked up over global warming.  By the way, what's going on with the bird flu scare? 

---

Comments

Make a comment:

Name (required) Email (required, but not published) Website (optional) Comment (required)