Sifting Through Lies On Both Sides in the Debate Over Global Warming

Somebody is lying. I do not know who, in the debate on global warming, has been lying but it is clear that lies exist. It is clear that it is not an honest debate. Call it lies, call it spin, call it whatever you want. It really ticks me off that people seem to spend more time spinning the problem of global warming than actually finding out what to do with it.

The reason I say this is because lately, for every news article written about how humans do cause global warming, there is an article stating that the exact opposite is true. For every article claiming the Earth will be too hot for life in ten years, there is an article stating that it will be cooler in ten years. Sometimes articles are written in separate newspapers about the same press release that claim different things (like the National Academy of Sciences study recently). Scientists and authors who write articles stating global warming is not an issue always seem to get traced back to big oil. And scientists and authors who write that global warming is an issue always seem to have evidence that is ambiguous, hard to understand, and sometimes even hidden.

What is the public supposed to do about this? Find an author you trust and believe everything they say? Pick a side simply based on what your political leaning is and stick with it because you think that’s what you’re supposed to do? Guess which side is right?

I’ll admit it’s frustrating and confusing to pick a side. I don’t know how the science works. I don’t know who is reputable beyond sifting through websites that claim to expose connections - even though I know these websites are just as likely to be corrupt.

So why do I, George, worry so much about global warming? If I don’t understand the science, beyond generalities, and I am not sure who is connected to a corrupt organization, why do I feel passionate about this issue? Well, I have two reasons.

The first is that I think we should do something about the global warming issue because of the stakes. If doubters are wrong and humans are drastically affecting the environment, human civilization as we know it could end. Massive deaths caused by storms, droughts, floods, and more. We could destroy the world. Compare this to the cost of doing something about pollution - erring on the side of caution if you will. With the number of disagreements by scientists over global warming, I’d say there is somewhere around a 50/50 chance global warming is the catastrophe that some predict it could be. For you economists out there, let’s do a little expected value calculation:


Cost(donothing) = ProbabilityofDestruction * ValueofHumanCivilization + Nocost

Let ProbabilityofDestruction = .05

Cost(donothing) = .5 * ValueofHumancivilization + 0


Cost(dosomething) = CostofDoingSomething = $$$


$$$ < (.5) * (ValueofHumanCivilization); thus we should take action.

Of course this is oversimplistic. But I’m just trying to make the point that taking a risk this enormous, even if there’s a chance there is no problem at all, is not worth it. Let’s make a sacrifice now and ensure that we don’t destroy the world.

The second reason I believe in the “Environmentalist” side of the debate is because there is less reward for taking this stance. Those who take the other side of the debate, and claim that global warming is not an issue are in the good graces of Big Oil (big money). Money wins campaigns - that’s why you don’t see many environmentalist politicians getting elected. Plus - what political candidate would win an election while promising a hard transition period to clean energy so that people 20 years down the road will be better off? That’s why I don’t think environmentalism is a politically popular idea. It doesn’t get you elected. Sure, it might be used to try to undermine the presidency, but does our current president really need any undermining with all of the problems right now? Look at current approval ratings - no desperate measures to “make up” problems about the environment need to occur! Environmentalism is not a money making idea, either, as I stated before. Money, especially today, is heavily located in Big Oil, not in environmental groups. These are precisely the reasons why I believe there is something to this whole global warming idea. There have to be reasons beyond money and politics for why people are taking such a hard environmental stance on the issue of global warming.

We cannot wait around and continue to debate the idea. We need to take action now. It doesn’t matter if there are doubts in our mind. The stakes are far too high to gamble with the problem of global warming.