On Global Warming

The politics and pseudo-science behind the issue of global warming (or is it politically correct to call it climate change?) make it almost impossible to have an opinion on the issue without “picking sides”. If you believe man is making the polar ice caps melt by using gas-powered leaf blowers, then, it is assumed you must logically conclude that all governments must join together to ban fast food hamburgers. On the other hand, if you ignore the glorious wisdom of our great spokesmen on this subject, you must be a quack. After all, who can argue with the man who invented the internet.

I have concluded -- like what the Republicans and Democrats are to politics -- so are the scientists on both side of this debate. They are all wrong.

First of all, both sides twist the data to verify their own conclusions. For every one of those charts scientists claim as conclusive evidence, there is someone on the other side that can re-configure them into opposite conclusions. On top of that, we, as humans, are very bad at determining cause and effect and are even more inept at accurately defining correlations between complicated phenomena. We also tend to arrogantly think we know more than we really do. If all the knowledge we have about global warming could fit on a grain of sand, what we don’t know would encompass the entire earth. Yet we continue to spew at facts as if we have some omnipotent insight into them.

Secondly, we ignore that every generation conjures up it’s own earth-ending disaster scenario. There was communist global domination, the population bomb, various world pandemic hysterias, and -- one that may actually still deserve some real attention -- nuclear annihilation.

We live in a dangerous world. We calm ourselves by thinking we -- or more dangerously -- our fuhrers can do anything about it. Treaties don’t work. Ask the Native Americans. It is simple arrogance to think that we can mandate away global warming any more than we can world hunger. Giving up sovereignty for safety has never worked. But fear works. Real or not, political power depends on it.

So, what to do? The science on both sides is iffy and the potential political solutions are even worse. And even if you do believe one side has the monopoly on truth, that does not mean that side's solution shouldn't be scrutinized.

How about this? Let’s all agree that we don’t know it all. Let’s not shoot first, ask questions later. Let’s not put guns to people’s heads and tell them what vehicle they can drive, whether they can travel, or that they can’t eat red meat. Let's not create new carbon taxes and regulations to stick it to the productive people of this world.

Here’s a novel idea, let’s agree that we all like clean air, water, and land and start showing some respect for those things -- regardless of where one may stand politically or scientifically. Even if you are on the side that doesn't believe man’s activity is in some way responsible for climate change, let’s be prudent and take care of our resources, stop buying crap we don’t need and casting off our used consumer goods haphazardly.

And finally, let’s stop picking sides and just do what is right in our own households. Let’s start there before using our governments to self-righteously demand others half way around the globe to bow down to our version of justice. After all, those people on the other side of the world are the ones buying up our debt, allowing us to continue our over-consumption, debt-ridden lifestyles.

We ain’t that holy.