|
The problem people tend to have over Global Warming, is that its been politicized into only being about us humans. We are the beginning and ending of it as far as politics goes. When it comes up, the fight over its existance entirely revolves around us. Those that sign on to the idea are seen as thinking humans caused it and must fix it. Those that are against it think that we humans could not have done enough to cause any of this and should not be held accountable for what they see as a natural cycle.
That the debate in politics has degenerated to a battle over if humans did or did not cause global warming, entirely distracts from anything meaningful.
Who cares if we did it or not. The issue should be to find out if we can fix it, or if we even need to fix it. If this is a natural cycle, would us "fixing" it make things worse? Is the Climate change natural? We have evidance that the Earth warms and cools over time and regions change. Ice Ages happen, and tropical regions expand and contract. If it is unnatural and our efforts are making things worse, than we have to prove it and that is trickier that just figuring out if they cycles are off or not.
That isn't to say that we can't effect it, making it happen faster than it should, not altering the cycle. It is just that our planetary record keeping doesn't go far enough back to know how the changes happen and over what period of time. Only that regions change over time (fossil records are good but narrowing down to a year over the course of a million years is tricky. But you need to have a fossil from what the changes happened, and the planet does't always give us the fossils we want).
The secondary problem is the enviromental laws that spring up "because of global warming". How many of those are real and how many are excuses to place fines, taxes, and other methods of gaining money for either the government or various corperations? How effective are they? Are they helping or hurting the cycles?
|