GlobalWarmingWastedDebate2-24-01pg1

Global Warming: Is it a wasted debate?

When one hears an environmental debate, the topic of global warming is bound to come up. More often than not, it creates more arguments than solutions. The debate looms, is global warming truth or myth? Some say global warming is a reality that has been accepted by the scientific community. They claim that all of the computer models prove it is true. They claim that ice caps beginning to break off, is a sign of global warming, as well as changing weather patterns. They claim that something must be done before its effects are irreversible and people die from the impacts of it.

The detractors of global warming say the scientific community is far from consensus. They claim that global warming is simply a myth created to undermine free markets and justify governmental control over corporations. They claim that it is little more than weather cycles. They claim the models are flawed and that there is no hard proof of global warming.

This debate goes on and on, round and round, with no end in sight. Until there is proof of global warming that is so undeniable that even the most strident of opposition of the theory changes their mind, this debate will continue. Unfortunately, if global warming is true that day won�t occur until global warming is a reality with its impacts. This is where this debate becomes useless.

Why do people oppose the theory of global warming so stridently? Some oppose it because they see their economic status in jeopardy. Some oppose it because they do not want to see their part in the cause of global warming. Some don�t want to change their current way of life, which believing in global warming would cause them to do. And still others don�t believe global warming is true based on the scientific information.

The people who fear their economic status is in jeopardy will not change their minds unless proof if shown, or economic benefits to them are proven of environmental policies. Those that oppose it because they don�t want to see their part in the cause of global warming won�t change their minds until it is an overwhelming consensus that global warming is a reality and they can find blame elsewhere. Those that don�t want to change their lifestyles won�t believe it until their lifestyle has been gradually changed for them so they don�t have to fear change. And those who doubt the scientific information won�t change their mind until some revelation occurs or it is proven, in which case, it will be too late to reverse it.

None of those things will be accomplished through decades of debate over the validity of global warming. The models may get better, but the lack of historical data over hundreds or even thousands of years, prevent the foundational evidence needed to deny any argument of weather cycles. While the computer models are good and getting better every year, the models are only as good as the information put into them. Therefore, if one cannot put in enough base information for the computer model, it cannot analyze it and make more accurate predictions. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done about this. Scientists can guess based on tree rings, rock markings, and many other things. But the accuracy of those guesses is still speculative due to the lack of written documentation to support those theories.

With that said, and the level of proof that many of those who oppose global warming need to change their minds, it could mean the global warming debate is at a crossroads, with little hope of finding either path to truth for decades. But how important is the global warming debate truly?

Environmentalists tend to focus on the global warming debate because of the sheer size of the impact of it. If global warming is proven true, it could cause long term extinction, according to some of its advocates. That means that everything dies. Nothing is left. No jobs, no corporations, no governments, no families, no pets, no food, nothing. While that may be a strategic advantage to the environmental lobby, it also may be a huge strategic detriment to the same group. Because of the huge size of the impact, it is more likely that people will deny the theory because people do not want to accept that such a possibility may be a reality. The same was illustrated by the building of bomb shelters during the cold war. Shelters that had little, if any, possibility of helping to save any lives in an all out nuclear attack. It was a combination of survival instinct and denial of the possibility of death. The same applies here.

The strategic use of the impact of extinction became the focus by the environmental lobby because of the reaction to local problems. While everyone said �it couldn�t happen to me� or in their area when local pollution problems occurred, extinction prevented that excuse of escapism.

So what is the answer? There is no simple answer, but in terms of this environmental debate, it has to come down to people. If the recent revoking of the executive orders of President Clinton by President Bush, in terms of the environment, hasn�t told environmentalists that government isn�t the answer to their problems, then they aren�t paying attention. The harsh reality is that corporations have created greater influence with government than environmentalists have. Corporations have more money than environmentalists, thus are able to exert greater influence upon government. The environmentalists have to win over people.

1 2