Emotion, not logic, driving global warming debate

Emotion, not logic, driving global warming debate





In the movie, An Inconvenient Truth, former Vice President Al Gore repeatedly claims that humanity is at a tipping point in its battle to fight global warming. Mr. Gore claims that if dramatic, if not draconian, measures are not taken in the next few years the entire future of humanity is at stake. He is strident in his arguments that the next few years represent a point of no return, the so called tipping point.
This is the same Al Gore who is prone to self-aggrandizing exaggeration. In case you forgot, this is the guy who invented the Internet; the same Al Gore who claims to have inspired the movie Love Story.
I agree with Mr. Gore that the next few years do represent a tipping point in the global warming debate. However, it is an entirely different tipping point. I fear that in the next few years we will decide to solve this debate either rationally or emotionally. The emotional debate that is fueling the argument that “mankind, specifically the United States, is the cause of global warming” is leaving the rational world of scientific debate to the emotionally charged world of politics and emotions.
The global warming debate has enormous consequences for all citizens of the world and particularly the United States. Depending on how we resolve this debate, we will decide today how future generations will live. As stated in a recent publication, “the climate change debate has gone from being a scientific study to a political wedge issue, used as a cudgel by parties of all persuasions to point fingers and score points.”
The issue is not “is the earth warming?” The critical question must be, “Is mankind the primary cause of the warming?” There is a growing consensus that the earth’s climate is warming but there is absolutely no scientific consensus that mankind is the primary cause. The earth has had countless warming and cooling cycles in its history. Mankind had no impact on any of these.
I have no idea if the threat is real, or more importantly, if there is anything we can do about it. Consider this fact: just this week, National Geographic, a strong proponent of “the man is the primary cause of global warming” movement, reported that the polar caps on Mars are melting due to the sun’s continuous sun spot cycles. There you have it. There is global warming on Mars. It must be the emissions from the Rover we sent there a few years ago.
The problem with the global warming debate in the United States is that it is not a traditional liberal or conservative debate. Our current institutions are not suited to solve this problem. Consider the built-in biases of the following institutions:
The Media – this is the group that is failing the most. The debate is incredibly complex. The press is uniquely qualified to educate its readers. However, in an effort to sell more advertising they have adopted the crisis mantra. Detailed analysis and scientific studies don’t sell papers; imminent, impending global apocalypse does.
Congress – This issue is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It cuts across both parties. In today’s environment, the two parties instinctively take opposite positions. One says “up,” the other instinctively says “down.” They are virtually useless in the current debate.
The President – he has the bully pulpit. He is uniquely qualified to sit back and access the data in an objective manner. He can use this pulpit to educate the citizenry and serve as a thoughtful counter measure to the other institutions. Tragically, he has inexplicably missed the opportunity to make lower oil consumption which would reduce carbon dioxide emissions –and thereby lower oil imports–a national security issue. We continue to burn excess oil and fund the very people with which we are at war.
The United Nations – the U.N. is institutionally anti-US and anti-capitalism. The institution itself is not credible because of its overt anti-American political agenda. Its members know that any “global’ solution will disproportionately impact the United States. Keep in mind, in a 2006 poll, 58 percent of our allies in Europe desired a weaker United States. These are our allies in the UN! They see this as a way to strengthen their own self interests at the expense of the United States.
And lastly, the scientist themselves - there is a noticeable difference in opinion between retired scientists and active scientists. Why is that? Michael Crichton, the scientist and author, claims that it is the due to the perverse quest for funding. The life blood of a research scientist is funding. To get funding you must publish studies that get the media’s attention. The retired researchers do not need funding. These retired researchers are more free to speak the truth. They overwhelmingly cast doubts on the impending doom that man is causing global warming bandwagon.
The point to this article is that the current global warming debate is failing. Emotion is taking over logic. Before we dramatically alter the benefits of the modern world as we know them, we need to be sure we are actually fixing the problem, not merely speculating and taking needless actions. It would be wise to consider the source and motivations of all of the so-called experts before reaching your own conclusion. The consequences are serious. That is why global warming deserves a serious debate.

Kirk Hancock can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com