Science vs. government

During a recent hearing of the House of Representatives’ Science, Space and Technology Committee, Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks claimed that Antarctica will have more ice because of global warming. However, Rep. Brooks highlighted ice gains from increased precipitation, while ignoring the continent’s greater loss of ice caused by melting.

Cherry-picking data is a common practice among climate skeptics, who are often ideologically committed to attacking climate science. In reality, the climate debate isn’t about science — it’s about the role of government. Many conservatives dismiss evidence of climate risk because they fear that acceptance of this evidence will lead to greater government intrusion in our lives.

In his book “The Constitution of Liberty,” Nobel Prize-winning economist and libertarian Friedrich Hayek writes: “Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it.”

How much wiser it would be to acknowledge the problem and offer bold, effective, limitedgovernment solutions. One policy that should be considered is a revenue-neutral carbon fee and dividend program, which would reduce emissions while protecting the poor and the economy. It’s crucial for members of Congress to find common ground on climate action. — Terry Hansen, Oak Creek, Wis.