|
The real debate behind "global warming" isn't that the earth's climate changes, but whether or not human activity has contributed to the recent rise in mean temperature. I haven't heard any arguments for going back to a pre-industrial state (though huge parts of the world still operate that way; many people in Africa, Eurasia, and South America continue to live on subsistence), but if industrial activity does lead to more warming during a natural warming trend (and this is the heart of the controversy) then we would do good to examine what we do because natural cycles plus human intervention could tip the climate scale to a dangerous degree. Climate change could easily wipe us out. True, it would take a while, but the earth becoming uninhabitable is one feasible extinction scenario. So saying "it's just cycles" doesn't give the entire story. If humans are contributing to warming (and, as I said, this is the controversy), then we'd be remiss not to do something to reduce those parts of our activities that contribute to that warming. That does not entail "going back to nature" but replacing climate compromising technologies with more climate friendly ones. The debate continues.
|