I just read Don McLean’s letter about charging oil, gas and coal companies for repairs to the homes of flood victims and I was taken aback by yet another new level of ridiculousness.
In order to force companies to pay, there would have to be proof positive that climate change is real, that it is man-made, and that it has led to increased local precipitation. All things that cannot be proven, so how could anyone possibly expect that fines could be levied on energy-producing companies? What kind of justice system would we have if such huge penalties could be assessed merely because of a theory?
There is no absolute evidence that global warming exists. The typical argument centres around “the consensus among scientists” being that the climate has undergone a permanent shift and that human action is to blame. There is no such thing as consensus science; consensus is invoked only in the absence of real proof. We will all know when (or if) that proof arrives, because there will be no more use of the word “theory.”
It is worth noting that environmentalism has now become a multi-billion dollar business. There are movies, books, magazines, clothing, consumer products, testing, reporting services, and other industries all built around the theory of climate change. These days there is money to be made for scientists who can design experiments showing that the climate is changing for the worse and that human action is to blame, and even more dollars for entrepreneurs who can keep coming up with new “green” products.
As for humans, we can’t compete with nature. Natural events have put more junk into the environment than in the entire history of cars and factories
I do agree with Mr. Mclean that there should be no subsidies for energy producers … but that’s because I believe all companies should sink or swim on their own.
Mike Matheson, Stoney Creek