It seems wholly appropriate that human beings should be conscious, concerned and active participants in protecting the environment which sustains our life.  From discussions on climate change to green energy to environmentally conscious building standards, there is constant and repetitive news coverage in both the broadcast and print media.  

This is certainly positive and a long way from the mindset slightly more than a century ago when the conventional wisdom was that God created rivers for human beings to dispose of their waste products.

Notwithstanding this higher level of consciousness concerning the role human beings play in interacting with their environment, it is equally important that on a subject as critical as this, to be sure opinions that are formed need to be based on factual information.  If they are not based on factual information policy decisions will be made that lead to unintended and usually negative consequences.   

The most controversial subject is what was called “global warming” and now called “climate change.”  

The scientists in charge of collecting most of the data that lead to the conclusion that our climate was warming based on human activity have now admitted in a broad ranging interview with the BBC that much of the data was anecdotal and does not pass the test of solid peer review.  In fact, during the interview the lead scientist said there is no evidence of global warming since 1975.

The population of the world is approximately 6 billion people.  China and India account for one-third of the total population.  Having visited China personally, I can attest to the fact that there is probably not one power plant that would be allowed to operate if the standards there were equal to those required of American industry.  In addition, while we require what are called “scrubbers” for power plants that use coal, the dominant source of electricity in India is generated by their huge reserves of coal and, guess what, no scrubbers are required.

Regardless of what is the ultimate conclusion on man's effect on the global climate, it is clear that all nations should do their best to minimize pollution as a by-product of industrial, commercial and day-to-day human activity.  While there have been two international conferences on these issues, there has been no agreement on a set of protocols.  

There is no doubt that the most advanced environmental standards are those required of Americans.  If the world community is truly concerned, then it seems clear, at a minimum, India, China, Russia and the former Eastern Bloc nations should be required to meet the standards Americans are required to meet.

In addition, before we unilaterally pass “cap and trade” legislation for America, there is a growing body of economic analysis that suggests this methodology will not work, and in fact has not worked in some countries where it has been tried and abandoned.  It also is true that some of the biggest proponents of this approach will in fact reap enormous personal economic benefits and untold profits, if cap and trade passes.

Given the growing skepticism from renowned scientists who study the atmosphere with respect to man and his role in climate change, it seems we should just pause, take a deep breath and at a minimum wait for the now UN sponsored independent scientific review of the data that lead to, among other things, a Nobel Prize for Al Gore.