schweblog

In response to a few comments on my blog regarding the current state of global warming, I thought I’d approach this from a slightly different direction. My initial reaction to dissenters of global warming is a simple blow-off–I’ve found most of them to justify their positions with very few facts. To disbelieve evidence suggesting that the warming of our planet is correlated with CO2 levels is ridiculously optimistic; it is somewhere along the lines of hoping for the second coming of a disappearing zombie that you have to telepathically swear allegiance to in order to be forgiven of a sin inflicted upon you by a rib-woman that ate a piece of fruit. But I digress…

I’ll admit that global warming is not an absolutely proven theory; no scientific idea can ever be absolutely true, if one wants to get skeptical enough. I’ll also admit that there are some rather iffy aspects of the argument and it certainly isn’t an airtight theory. Current warming trends on Mars, for example, suggest that there might be something else going on that’s not completely related to human activity; there are a number of skeptics that are well-educated enough to be a potential canary in a coal mine. For the sake of this argument, let’s presume that the evidence for either side is dead even. There’s just as many reasons to buy into global warming as there are reasons to totally disregard it as a hoax.

Why opt into the global warming idea? Why buy into it where there are several holes in it? First, there are a number of benefits, besides the obvious (and rather optimistic) idea that it might just curb a potential disaster. Belief in global warming will encourage us to wean ourselves off of petroleum products, search for renewable energy sources, become more aware of our ecological footprint, and generally be more environmentally conscious. I don’t see how one could argue that these aggregate effects would be a negative development, nor do I believe that proponents of global warming have a whole lot to gain from a worldwide acceptance of the idea and subsequent action to curb our possible effects on the planet. I mean, really–it’s not like Sheryl Crow and Al Gore are the CEOs of companies marketing hydrogen-powered automobiles.

On the other hand, if we continue to be skeptical about the possibility that global warming just might be a byproduct of our behavior and lifestyle choices, we can remain comfortably within the status quo. Our reliance upon oil continues, our involvement in Middle Eastern countries continues, and our ecological footprint grows exponentially larger to accompany our ever-growing mindset of consumerism. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to get Americans out of their SUVs and onto bicycles. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to remove any interest we might have in sticking our noses into the Middle East. And I don’t think it’s a bad thing to force people to become aware of the very real (possible) impact that their behavior will have on our children and our children’s children and to adjust their behavior to be slightly more considerate of future generations.

Ceteris paribus, putting stock into global warming and the subsequent behavior that it encourages will produce more overall benefits than not doing anything. I don’t see how doubting it and disregarding it as even a possibility will do us any good, in the long or short run. And, like I mentioned before, it’s not as if its proponents have a whole lot to gain from large-scale acceptance of the idea–unlike its skeptics.