Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Man-made Global Warming: Hoax or Win-Win Situation?

Having been through the research process a number of times, I know that you can make foregone conclusions based upon data. It's easy to get wrapped up in the results you're looking for rather than what may be the truth. That said, it's completely unfair to the thousands of scientists - who generally are apolitical - to accuse the climate change researchers of being politically and financially motivated. Many within the research-side actually have altruistic intentions of ensuring that we have not hit a tipping point. That said, there is some scientific-based skepticism that is definitely worthy of merit, particularly this guy Dr. Roy Spencer ( (who has never been funded by the oil companies to research alternatives to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis).

Are we jumping the gun with legistlation? Perhaps. At the end of the day however, even IF human-caused global warming is false, using less energy, researching and funding alternative sources of energy (including nuclear), all while doing more to make less of a CO2 impact on the environment is a win-win; we become more energy indepedent and stretch out our reserves of limited natural resources. The argument against doing so is short-sighted and only concerned for how it will affect our pocketbooks with little regard to what we may be leaving for our grandchildren.

Opinion does not equal scientifically/statistically researched hypotheses. I give weight to both sides of the argument on their scientific merits; opinions on both sides, I do not. Right now, there is a mountain of evidence that shows a global warming trend coinciding with an increasing CO2 global concentration. When/if the alternative hypotheses can mount that much data in opposition to the commonly held manmade causes, we can kick ourselves, but faith and skepticism are not on equal footing with the scientific method.