My response: They're the Party of No.

Seriously, I think a "good" Republican
would tell you they believe in a free market.  Of course no one
believes in laissez faire any more, but the freer the market, the more
successful it is, and a successful free market is what made this
country great.  (Things like the Apollo Program were only possible
because we had a strong capitalist system that produced superior
companies--IBM, McDonnel Douglas, MIT--through competition.) 
Environmentalist laws cripple companies, resulting in lower profits,
fewer paid employees, and stifled innovation and competition.  Not to
mention that there's still plenty of unspoiled country left, and no one
goes to national parks anyway.  It is also completely true that heat
waves and extinctions are part of nature and existed long before we
started burning coal.  Who really cares about the Arctic Caribou when
we can end our dependence on foreign oil?


The basic problem with such a viewpoint is it is destructively
myopic and ignores the very serious issue of man-made global warming. 
Things like a hole in the ozone layer directly above Los Angeles.  Our
actions are hurting us, now.  (I hear that hole has healed, thanks to
the environmentalist law banning CFC's.)


More specifically, this Australian geologist is a crackpot who
doesn't know what he's talking about.  Geologically speaking, the
meteor that killed the dinosaurs barely deserves notice, but it sure as
hell mattered to the millions of dinosaurs who died.  What's the
opposite of myopia?  Even George Carlin agrees that a million years
from now, the planet won't care about what we did today.  Once we've
killed ourselves off, the earth will heal and go on its merry way.  But
it still matters to us now.


The geologist's second problem is his selective focus on a single
issue of pollution--carbon dioxide.  CFC's and carbon monoxide are both
much bigger problems and he skirts them entirely.  He picks the
low-hanging fruit and pretends it's the entire tree.


Third problem: dude's a geologist.  He's not a chemist, he's not a
climatologist, he's not a meteorologist, he's not a botanist, he's not
a biologist.  If I want to know what my kitchen counter is made of,
I'll ask him.  If I want to know about global warming, I'll ask someone
who actually has a clue.


Final problem: if you want to believe in a giant conspiracy, you
need to have a good explanation as to why it exists.  Why are all these
environmental groups so obsessed with this if there's really no
scientific basis for it?  Why does the vast majority of the scientific
community believe it?  The Canadian article vaguely hinted that
governments like to embrace environmentalism because they like having
things that make people afraid.  But this argument doesn't actually
make sense; it is the fear-free governments (Japan, Western Europe,
Germany) that are more environmentally friendly, and the fear-mongering
governments (Bush administration, China) that are more environmentally
unfriendly.  Besides, if you need something to make the people afraid,
the spectre of terrorism and WMD's is much more effective, there's no
logical reason why anyone would choose carbon monoxide as a fear
inducer over terrorism.  Just like most conspiracy theories, it doesn't
work if you think about it for more than five minutes.

J<