The global warming debate

According to recent studies, only 44 percent of say there is “solid evidence” that global warming is mostly due to human activity.  What doesn't help the argument is that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1996.  Still, that does not mean we should completely disregard the theory.

Actually, I think many of the most adamant champions of the global warming theory forget is that it is, after all, just a theory; an educated guess.  I don't have a problem with schools teaching global warming, the problem I have is that they teach it as though it were a fact, and not the theory it is.  They teach that there is global warming, and that we humans are the cause.  

Those in favor of the theory say that increased CO2 emissions by man are leading to global temperatures. They say:

1. Combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories, and electricity production
2. The gas responsible for global warming is carbon dioxide, or CO2
3. Overpopulation causes global warming because people exhale CO2
4. Methane from landfills and agriculture causes it
5. Nitrous Oxide from fertilizers causes it
6. Gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes causes it
7. Loss of forests that store CO2 is also a contributing cause

There are those who are so in love with this theory that they believe that people who don't believe in, or who downplay, the global warming theory should be tried for treason, according to New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman in 2009.  Yes, there are those who want to go that far.  

At the very least, they want to create more regulations to force people and industries into complying with the global warming theory.  

To this, those in opposition to the theory would say: "All this based on a theory?  You want to risk destroying the economy based on a theory?"  To be honest, such opponents do make a good case.  

For instance, many corporations say that complying with such regulations costs so much that it comes at the expense of expansion and job creation, and this hurts the economy.  

For instance, there are those who say they won't even consider opening a new business because the cost of complying with regulations would offset the benefits of opening one.  This, they say, has resulted in fewer jobs.  

Supporters of the theory would say back:  "So what?  The loss to the economy is to the benefit of the planet."  

Opponents of the theory will say that global warming theorists only use data from 1970 on, and that if you use data from 1900 onward you will see that there is a good argument that can be made to support a cyclical trend of global warming and global cooling, regardless of how much CO2 is emitted by man.  

Well, who is right?  Well, it depends on whether you are an idealist or a realist.  If you are an idealist, your theory is your ideal, and you will do whatever is in your power to defend it.  If you are a realist you will stay open minded, consider the facts, and make a wise decision.  

It also depends on what your priorities are.  Do you put the planet before people, or do you put people before the planet.  To me, I believe it is best to trust people to be environmentally responsible, and err on the side of man.