From libertarian Michael A. LaFerrara:
Industry scientists may be biased? Fair enough. But why should we assume that the integrity of the fired scientists is beyond dispute? Scientists can just as easily be biased against business and free enterprise. Government policy should not be shaped by them, either. Statists always recoil whenever anyone considers unregulating, as if regulations are good, simply because they are government regulations. But what if the motive is anti-business or anti-prosperity?
That said, pollution is one thing. Climate change is something entirely different. Climate science has become the God of the Left’s environmentalist religion. Environmentalism is based on the faith-based notion that nature is inherently “pristine” and any human action that upsets some precarious and perfect “balance of nature” is by that very fact immoral and catastrophic. There is no evidence of that.
Whom should we trust: *potentially* biased scientists who *might* have an anti-business agenda or clearly biased politicians who definitely have a pro-business agenda? We’re not talking about scientists firing other scientists over bad work or hastily drawn conclusions.
Like other conservatives, LaFerrara invents liberal beliefs in his mind and argues against them, here suggesting that environmentalists believe nonsense X, from which Y follows. Also like other conservatives, he suggests that science should not be invoked as a final authority. At least he didn’t use the old “Scientists can be wrong too!” line.
It’s a shame, since he’s right about his more important point: that our scientific conclusions do not necessarily dictate that we pursue the “statist” policies he detests. If only he could get past his anti-liberalism and see through the cynical strategies of “conservatives” who vocally acknowledge climate change (even anthropogenic!) but show through their actions that they either don’t really believe in it or don’t care because it’s bad for profits and likely won’t affect them.
At this point, it is still a constant struggle to get conservative voters and politicians to acknowledge climate change. Many of them still fall back on idiocy like “God wouldn’t let that happen” or “We’re arrogant to think that we can affect the climate” or “It’s cold right now!” Even talk of investing in market solutions is met with cries of “Free market interference!” Perhaps if Republicans would grow up, we could have productive discussions about this issue — and everything else.