When your first article is a direct attack on my intelligence, you’ve asked for it.

Matt, if you think Global Warming is based on good science and government protects the environment with regulation, you are the moron.

Once the word broke that the hockey stick graph was a crock, proponents of anthropogenic climate change realized they had a struggle ahead, and the vernacular began its shift to the new phrase, “Climate Change”.

After eight years of global cooling, an increase in the polar bear population, and plenty more evidence that CO2 is not dangerous, all they have left is their computer models.

Computer models are not only inaccurate, they are not science.

On another topic which was hyperlinked above- Endangered Species Act: It creates the incentive for land owners to kill any endangered specie so as to not lose their land.

On Cap and Trade: see my last article

On Pollution: Progressives in the late 1800s ended incentives for industry to be clean when they declared maximum production in the public interest. The court system has since not regarded pollution a violation of property, when it is necessarily trespass and therefore criminal.

Environmentalists are split into two camps. They agree on the end, which is man being respectful of nature and mindful of the scarcity of natural resources. The difference is in the means to attain that end. Some think that government exists to force people to do what is in the supposed public interest. I, and many like me, understand that problems are solved more completely and permanently through the voluntary mechanisms of the markets, and protection of property rights.