Despite the strong consensus within the scientific community that global warming constitutes a serious threat to the human race and that human activity is contributing to the warming trend, there are some people who continue to insist that there is nothing to be concerned about and no reason to alter our behavior. An angry tone seems to be common when these doubters and deniers discuss global warming.
Several possible explanations for the intensity of their reactions come to mind. Their anger may be triggered by antagonism to environmentalists and their long history of opposing the unbridled harvesting of natural resources in the service of commerce and profit. The fact that science is seen by many as the enemy of religion may be a factor. They may be concerned that addressing global warming threatens our love affair with the automobile - fearing that sooner or later “they” are going to take our cars away or expect us to drive cars powered by carrot juice that won’t even come close to going zero to sixty in a matter of seconds.
Whatever the explanation, global warming seems to have become one of those issues, like abortion or gay marriage, where no one is allowed to remain neutral. There seems to be very little middle ground. You either accept global warming as a serious threat, or dismiss it entirely.
When “four out of five dentists” recommended sugarless gum “for their patients who chew gum,” I didn’t switch to sugarless gum, I quit chewing gum. I also found myself wondering what was wrong with that fifth dentist. In the same spirit, if four out of five scientists are concerned about global warming, I am willing to share their concerns.
Global warming seems to be an issue where we would be wise to err on the side of caution. If the grim scenario envisioned by the scientific community comes to pass, the consequences will be severe. We should be doing everything we can to minimize the damage.
Even if scientists are wrong about global warming, there are dangers involved in continuing to burn fossil fuels. Much of what we can do to combat global warming has benefits that outweigh their costs.
Let’s take a layman’s look at cars. You don’t have to be a scientist to know what happens if your sit inside your car, with the engine running, in a garage or other enclosed space. If you sit there too long, you won’t have to worry about global warming any longer. You will die of carbon monoxide poisoning. This would seem to indicate that the exhaust coming out of our cars is hazardous.
The cloud of smog enveloping our cities is not a figment of the scientific imagination. Find a high point outside of any major metropolitan area and you can easily see it for yourself. I’m certain we could get a heated argument going about exactly how dangerous smog may be, but no sane person would argue that breathing heavily polluted air is a good thing.
As the price of oil rises, the cost of driving our cars is going up. You can rail against the oil companies all you want. I’ll be happy to join you. Their profits are obscene, yet they are still subsidized by our government.
By subsidizing the oil industry and keeping taxes on gasoline low, the government has helped to keep gas prices down. We pay much less for gas than drivers in Japan or Europe. About the only thing the government could do to keep gas prices from going up would be to regulate oil company profits. Don’t hold your breath on that one. In the long run, the price of gas is rising and will continue to do so, for reasons that are beyond the government’s control.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
While I agree with your general objectives of 'greening' society, the rhetoric you use certainly doesn't fit with turning down the 'heat' on the subject.
Despite the strong consensus within the scientific community that global warming constitutes a serious threat to the human race and that human activity is contributing to the warming trend,
That consensus is fictional. Fewer than a third of the recognized climate scientists in the world have taken this position. Most are neutral or have taken no public position, and large numbers remain skeptical.
The evidence clearly shows that global warming is overshelmingly a natural, cyclic phenomenon with human contributions negligible.
An angry tone seems to be common when these doubters and deniers discuss global warming.
Ah, I see. Like most global warming advocates you just want the skeptics to be 'calm' or in other words to be silenced, because their demands for empirical evidence are difficult for scientists whose position is more like a religion and is based mainly on politics to deal with.
The fact that science is seen by many as the enemy of religion may be a factor.
How about they mostly want to see real evidence rather than theories based on wildly inconsistent methodology. The truth is that those who question global warming are taking the scientific position - to be skeptical of theories until there is actual evidence to support them.
You either accept global warming as a serious threat, or dismiss it entirely.
It's called the 'leap of faith' - it's key to most religions, including global warming.
Let's take a layman's look at cars. You don't have to be a scientist to know what happens if your sit inside your car, with the engine running, in a garage or other enclosed space. If you sit there too long, you won't have to worry about global warming any longer. You will die of carbon monoxide poisoning. This would seem to indicate that the exhaust coming out of our cars is hazardous.
This is actually not true with a large number of contemporary vehicles. I know that my truck produces virtually no CO.
The cloud of smog enveloping our cities is not a figment of the scientific imagination.
I'm not sure how old you are, but many of us remember how terrible smog was 20 years ago and are pretty happy with how much better it is today. You may have noticed that they've switched from warning about actual particulate smog to 'ozone alerts', because that's the only output from cars they can measure that might theoretically be dangerous, though proof of the actual threat from ground-level ozone is largely lacking.
Find a high point outside of any major metropolitan area and you can easily see it for yourself. I'm certain we could get a heated argument going about exactly how dangerous smog may be, but no sane person would argue that breathing heavily polluted air is a good thing.
Most of the cities I visit regularly which used to have smog problems have remarkably clear air today. Only a few which are basins which create inversion domes are still smog ridden, and in some of those cases (Los Angeles) a lot of the smog is coming from outside the country.
As the price of oil rises, the cost of driving our cars is going up. You can rail against the oil companies all you want. I'll be happy to join you. Their profits are obscene, yet they are still subsidized by our government.
Facts are not your friend. The profit margin of the oil industry is extraordinarily low compared to other businesses. If my business had a profit margin that low I'd fold up shop and go back to teaching college.
By subsidizing the oil industry and keeping taxes on gasoline low, the government has helped to keep gas prices down.
Low in the sense of taxing it more than ANY other product in the marketplace. And from what I've seen the prices aren't terribly low.
That said, I agree that we ought to tax gas much more than we do, but good luck selling that to consumers.
About the only thing the government could do to keep gas prices from going up would be to regulate oil company profits.
That would basically come down to nationalizing the oil industry because with profits as low as they are investors would dump oil stocks if they went any lower.
I could go on. But you do make some good points, and there are plenty of reasons to improve our environment and reduce dependence on foreign oil, not least fighting terrorism. But your argument is not helped by your obvious intolerance of scientific skepticism about global warming or your willing to repeat the fictions of the environmental socialists without questioning them even a little bit.
Dave
2 - Krutic
The fact that science is seen by many as the enemy of religion may be a factor
This is easily one of the most nonsensical arguments I've ever heard by global warming alarmists - and I have heard many.
Name one major religion or sub-group of a religion that has views counter to global warming or science in general.
Most issues are related to stem cells and evolution (and mostly in Christianity).
Global warming is in no way connected to stem cells or the evolution/creationism argument.
Moreover not 'many' but a very few idiots think science and religion are 'enemies'. Most intelligent people do not believe this.
The elitism and self righteousness here is amazing.
You know that is one of the reasons why people don't like Al Gore - he comes across exactly like this - full of himself and condescending to others who don't agree with his nutty dire predictions.
Oh and Dave I'd call 'em environmental fascists not socialists!
3 - Dr Dreadful
Although Dave is talking complete bollocks, particularly with regard to his remarks on the scientific consensus, I will refrain, in the spirit of Winston's article, from engaging in a heated debate. Some other time.
4 - Baritone
You can read the comments here and choose to accept Dave's pronouncements regarding the lack of scientific concensus on global warming - believing him simply because, well because Dave says so, kinda like we believed mommy and daddy or Uncle Al - you know, the guy who was always telling you to pull on his finger, when you were a kid, or you can take a bit of time and discover that he's only one more conservative voice in abject denial of the notion of human contributions to global warming.
Here are a few members of the scientific community who DO have a concensus regarding the reality and very real dangers of global warming:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
International Academies (Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change.)
Of course there are some scientists who disagree, or supposedly have registered "no opinion" on climate change. While it is apparently assumed by opponents that the members of the scientific community who ascribe to the reality of global warming are, as Winston suggests, "power hungry," or have some nefarious political agenda, it is rarely suggested that those who are in opposition have any agendas of their own, or that they may well be influenced or even intimidated by the powers that be in government and the corporate community which have a vested interest in suppressing the notion of global warming.
I wonder if Dave remains skeptical regarding the use of tobacco products and their connection to cancer?
B-tone
5 - Clavos
Dave's not the only one.
William Gray, recognized as one of America's top two hurricane experts also has reservations, as does Max Mayfield, recently retired director of the National Hurricane Center here in Miami.
Others who have published books questioning the "consensus:"
Bjorn Lomborg - The Skeptical Environmentalist and Chill Out
Peter Huber - Hard Green
Jack Hollander - The Real Environmental Crisis
S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery - Unstoppable Global Warming
Wilfred Beckerman - A Poverty of Reason
These are just the books on my own bookshelves; there are many others published.
Just yesterday, Canada's National Post published an opinion piece by Lorne Gunter which quotes several top Canadian scientists as they discuss anomalies and discrepancies in the findings touted by the "consensus," including recent work in the polar ice fields that indicates the melting of the ice caps is due to shifting of ocean currents, not global warming. Other data suggests that the caps have stopped melting and are re-freezing.
In short, gentlemen, there is a growing amount of authoritative and very credible scientific dissent about many aspects of the "consensus" which cannot be ignored any longer.
Global warming exists, no one of any standing in climatology disputes that basic observation. It is the extent of anthropogenic causes that these scientists question. There is considerable data that suggests that global warming is cyclical and far more closely related to solar activity than human activity.
6 - Cannonshop
Funny thing is, it's never BEEN about the Climate, anymore than Anthropogenic Global Cooling was thirty years ago.
It's about POWER. Power, and money. There's a lot of both in Apocalyptic Predictions, both religious, and non-religious, and there are a lot of fools out there willing to toss their reason aside for the latest "The End is Nigh" scare-tactic, especially if the scare is tied to something most folks agree as being a good thing-most anyone you meet, right or left, agrees that less pollution is better, and nobody wants to live in a toxic wasteland if they can help it.
When someone with a doctorate of sciences tells someone who is a non-scientist something, that scientist tends to carry quite a bit of credibility-often enough that a non-scientist will accept what they are saying without question, and usually without applying the scientific method themselves. This becomes even MORE so when the scientist in question is considered a "Respected" scientist-in other words, known to the public, or to powerful non-scientists. (F'rinstance, a Presidential Scientific Advisor, the head of a department at a prominent university, or a staff member of importance at a well known lab.) This CAN be a mistake, taking an "authority" at their word. The infamous "Mann Hockeystick" graph that formed much of the scientific basis of the Kyoto Accords, for instance, went un-challenged until a canadian hobbyist in mathematics (okay, so the guy had a masters' degree...) demonstrated that using the same mathematical models published to support "Runaway Global Warming" in Mann's papers would produce the same exact result when randonm numbers were placed into the values where observed climate numbers had been placed-this promptly resulted in papers being pulled and further access to said materials being restricted by the very respected (and still very much employed and cited) professor.
Science, to be SCIENCE (as opposed to DOGMA in the style of Creationism and ID arguments) MUST BE TRANSPARENT. That is, the experiment MUST BE ABLE TO BE REPLICATED and DERIVE THE SAME RESULT. Cooking the books is cheating. In the case of science intended to influence policy, cooked books is BAD.
The entire Anthropogenic Model is basically put forward to influence behaviours and policies. For it to be serious science, it must be one-hundered-percent ethical-that is, no data ignored for being inconvenient, no models massaged to get a specific result, and the experimental data must be completely accessable, along with the error-ratio. Many "Global Warming" papers omit the last bit-and with good reason... when your margin of error exceeds your predicted outcome, in other sciences (metallurgy, for instance, physics, Engineering, or chemistry) you're not ready to publish your hypothesis, much less claim it to be a full theory backed by hard evidence.
Ignoring inputs is also bad science- that is, ignoring things like tectonic activity, volcanism, Solar activity, or orbital mechanics when discussing climate is ignoring significant inputs into the system in favour of "proving" your hypothesis. It's like invoking only selected archaeological sites as proof of God, or ignoring mundane facts to prove aliens built the Pyramids.
The difference, of course, being that "Scientific Authorities" are making the assertion, so they recieve a higher level of credibility among the Public, Leadership, and Media, than other kooks with agendas.
Incidentally, this extends into scientific specialties outside of the one under discussion- a biochemist may well be focused enough to take the word of a peer in another field as gold without examination of that peer's methods. It's happened before, after all, and it's really no different from an auto-mechanic taking the word of an Architect, or a machinist accepting the claims of an economist, and offering his or her support to a fellow professional without questioning said trusted peer's motives or methodology.
Finally- only the truly ignorant would claim that the climate does not change-we live under a G-2 VARIABLE star, on an unstable skin of rock and water over a boiling and active core of superheated material, in an elliptical orbit that is perturbed by a closer mass that weighs roughly a quarter what our world weighs, all of this in motion at speeds that are, frankly, amazing. Our atmosphere is a fluid mixture that flows at a different speed from the ground beneath it, and has additional movement imposed through a process known as convection...and the whole mess is unevenly heated, and barely held together by gravity.
it would be more extraordinary if the Climate was NOT fluctuating and changing, human presence or not.
Anthropogenic Global Warming strikes me as being arrogance on the scale of the Humanocentric, Geocentric, crystal-sphere model of the universe that was commonly(and wrongly) accepted prior to the time of Copernicus.
7 - Dave Nalle
B-Tone, you can take my word or not as you choose. We've been over the issue before, so I'm not just making stuff up, as Clavos illustrates.
And the argument as a whole is not whether there is global warming or global climate change, but mostly over what the human role in it is.
Putting aside all of the 'deniers' (how's that for a charged word), the key point to me is that those who support human causation want to shut down all scientific inquiry on the topic. They want NO questions asked. They oppose the basic empirical process which is the basis of science. That makes them inherently suspect to me.
And when you get right down to it, this is ALL political. It's all about advancing a globalist agenda using global warming as a wedge issue to raise funds and intimidate governments and build power.
Dave
8 - Boxorox
Certainly, you can take all your characterizations and assumed motives stated in this article about GW deniers and skeptics and turn them toward yourselves. To the contrary, I find the global warming campaign proponents to be the ones who overwhelmingly deal with this subject in inflammatory tones and act quite defensively toward those who question their foundations and their motives. We, who rely upon and defend science in the face of the global warming mania, tend to be far more civil, rational, and offering of facts, than our GW opponents.
This issue is about science and natural history. It is about preventing the political campaign to control society from distorting the truth and making sure that we, as a nation and as a species, make the right choices for the future and to focus on issues that really matter. Global warming and its opposite, global cooling, have been around since time immemorium. We don't influence, but we would do well to remember how to adapt to it and its effects, just as our countless previous generations of ancestors have done.
9 - Boxorox
B-tone-
By the way, the GSA (Geological Society of America) does not present itself as a support of Anthropogenic Global Warming. We are dedicated to the investigation and study of natural truth. The GSA is not a political organization but is dedicated to preserving science and furthing the understanding of earth history and its natural processes. As a whole, the membership is skeptical, at best, about the role of humanity in climate change.
10 - Christopher Rose
It really doesn't matter too much what the ultimate causes of global warming may be. What matters is how we are going to respond to it. Doing nothing is one option but may prove more costly than getting a head start on planning our responses.
11 - Dave Nalle
But if human's didn't cause global warming it does raise the question of whether they can actually stop it or even if they should try.
But it's all sort of moot since the latest evidence suggests that global warming is neither as severe or as worldwide as has been suggested.
For example, a study last year showed that the ice in the arctic was no longer melting and had never been melting at the rate claimed by the IPCC.
And more recently the polar ice cap has actually been expanding.
The irony is that if you search google news you find the one factually supported article with information from actual research proving that ice is not melting in the arctic, and dozens of content-free panic pieces about global warming, surging rises in the sea and doomed polar bears - none of which has any factual support.
Sorry, it's all just fearmongering bullshit.
Dave
12 - Doug Hunter
Ah, Chris thanks for bringing back the other inane response from alarmists. When pressed it always ends with that. Who cares what the facts are, we should just act for the sake of acting. I don't know how many times I've seen alarmists say that.
How about we don't act foolishly, blowing hundreds of billions, and imposing authoritarian controls while getting ourselves involved in a process we know little about.
Believe it or not there are real problems that don't need consensus to be dealt with out there that are much more straightforward to solve than GW. Alternative energy is one of them.
Just a couple of points since this debate is so stale already.
1) Alarmists claim all scientists who are skeptical are selling out for some sort of energy industry money. How about the billions of $$$ floating around to anyone willing to indict mankind for this so called climate change? How can you say that the paltry few million energy companies had used to battle this early on even compare to the billions flowing into this issue by those hoping to make a killing when the new carbon economy arises.
2) Not that alarmists would care about research, but, check out the warming after the younger-dryas cold spell only 12000 years ago. Greenland warmed 20 degrees F in only 50 years, the antarctic warmed by 4 F in roughly the same period. The world as a whole warmed much faster then than it has now(currently like 1 degree F in 150 year span), completely naturally.
Just a couple points to look into for yous. I think CO2 probably does have some minimal impact on climate, but, like most climate scientists polled I dont believe there is evidence sufficient to make major changes to public policy.
13 - zingzing
so los angeles smog comes from... where? "other countries?" like where? i suppose mexico... but i've never heard of any such thing. reference, please.
dave, you seem to have two version of facts. your version and the version that doesn't fit in with your vision of your version of the facts. you ignore the latter.
as for your "big cities have remarkably clean air" shit, go to china. go to new york. the air is not clean, it's filthy. and don't quote "hurricane experts," as they are obviously all fools.
i think we can all agree that there is no harm in going more green and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels. if you live in a big city, take public transportation (except for the jmz/nqr around 8:15 am, thank you). if you live in buttfuck, sit on your ass and drink beer all day, you fuckin' hicks. thanks. :)
14 - Baritone
First: Boxo,
A published statement by the GSA as follows:
The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth's climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries."
Second: Clav,
I'm sure your bookshelves are quite impressive, but I wonder how many scientists are represented by the groups I cited above?
I find the opposition here very disingenuine and mis-guided. Your skepticism does not make you superior or right. A great deal of good, hard science has been accomplished that firmly establishes the reality, not only of global warming, but of the deleterious effects of human activity.
Most of you doubters are so skeptical of all human motivations, that you can't fathom that anyone might simply be doing their jobs as scientists without some nefarious political agenda underpinning their reported results. You are incapable of believing that there is such a thing as an honest man or woman - unless, of course, they agree with you.
You accuse supporters as being alarmists and/or as having evil, power grabbing agendas. Could it be that most of you have taken your positions in the fear that, god forbid, the truth of human influence on climate change might put a dent in your portfolios, which renders your opposition both self serving and highly political?
B-tone
15 - Clavos
"don't quote "hurricane experts," as they are obviously all fools."
I quoted 'em.
Surprised at you, zing. You're not usually such an asshole...
As for going more green; I'm all for it. think I'll trade my current 6 cylinder SUV for a V-8 painted green. :>)
16 - zingzing
yeah, i didn't know who quoted the hurricane experts, but whatever. on the environment, clavos, you may as well be dave.
and really, when was the last time the "hurricane experts" were even close to making an accurate prediction?
and what was remotely asshole-ish about THAT statement? in fact, what was asshole-ish about any of it, except for telling the hicks to just sit still? and the second paragraph... even if that's been said 100 times before? what's asshole-ish about asking where los angeles' smog comes from, if not from los angeles? what's asshole-ish about letting dave know that big-city air is NOT clean, because america (or texas) is not the fucking world?
the only thing i said that was asshole-ish was that last statement, really, which was MEANT to be asshole-ish in my usual way, so you really should expect it by now.
i think the only thing asshole-ish you can see is my opinion.
(other than this whole post, which is just a reaction.)
(i'm feeling ill, excuse me.)
17 - Winston Apple
“An angry tone seems to be common” in these comments. Allow me to make one further attempt to “turn down the heat.”
I don’t consider myself to be an “alarmist.” I do consider myself to be alarmed. If the alarmists are right, we have a great deal to lose by failing to act. Hence my feeling that “we should err on the side of caution.”
I am not a scientist, but I do my best as a concerned citizen to be informed by facts when possible. The scientific community is one source of information we need to access on some important issues, including global warming.
[A brief aside about science: It sometimes takes scientists a while to figure something out, but eventually they get it right. The only “theory” widely accepted by scientists with which I personally disagree is gravity. I am not convinced it exists. I think a more likely explanation for the observed effects is that the Earth sucks.]
With regard to the threat of global warming, obviously there are scientists on both sides of the issue. As the comments in response to my article indicate, it’s not difficult to get a game of dueling facts going - including a dispute about what percentage of scientists are concerned about the impact of human activity on global warming.
The main point I tried to make (I obviously didn’t do a very good job) is that we will benefit from most of the actions we, as individuals, could take to lessen the effects of global warming “(e)ven if the scientific community is wrong about global warming.”
We can save money on gas for our cars and on our utility bills. We can lessen the inflationary impact of increases in the price of oil. We can stop sending tons of money to OPEC. And, by God, we can help Al Gore sleep more peacefully.
- Winston Apple
18 - Christopher Rose
Dave, the Arctic ice is not that relevant as it is already in the water; it is the Antarctic ice, which is almost entirely on land, that would be a cause for concern. Coincidentally, there was an article about this Antarctic glaciers surge to ocean on the BBC news web site yesterday.
Doug, you appear to have misunderstood. I'm not suggesting that any particular course of action should be undertaken, I merely said that what matters is what response there should be. Don't let your conviction blind you.
Global warming is a fact, if for no other reason that the Earth is emerging from an Ice Age. It would seem likely that human activity is going to add something to the natual processes at work.
19 - Druxxx
I think the one thing we can agree upon, and IMO the point of the article, is that fossil fuels are finite. We have to slow our use of them. Alternates are a must.
And energy independence would have the added benefit of taking a few billion dollars out of the pockets of rogue states that don’t like us.
20 - Clavos
"A great deal of good, hard science has been accomplished that firmly establishes the reality, not only of global warming, but of the deleterious effects of human activity.
The reality, yes. Agreed. The extent (if any) of the "deleterious effects of human activity" ON GLOBAL WARMING is a looong way from being established, which is precisely the whole point of the discussion.
As for portfolios: mine is mostly in defense (warmongering) and pharmas; they pay far better than green for now; but I will shift when the time is right. I don't invest in causes; only results.
21 - troll
As for portfolios: mine is mostly in defense (warmongering) and pharmas; they pay far better than green for now; but I will shift when the time is right. I don't invest in causes; only results.
........we have met the enemy and he is us (href Pogo etc)
boycott war profiteers
22 - Baritone
Clav,
You proved my point to some extent regarding what is short sighted and self serving. Go for the gold. Fuck the rest of it as long as I get mine.
The evidence that human activity is having an adverse effect on the world's climate is not nearly the stretch that you seem convinced of. It is a very complex question, but I agree with Winston, given the possible cost, to err on the side of caution seems at least prudent to me.
B-tone
23 - Howard Bowen
Dinasaurs. Is it real? I have read articles claiming raw, intact dinasaur eggs have been discovered. I realize the media has such impressive powers over the thinking of people, that the skin, eye color, nails, feet, and incredulously, the wings, on huge cumbersome cold blooded animals, has become the science of palenotolgy, a science to believe in which theoretically, fills the void created by atheist america. When I view programs whose themes are set in pre-industrial era's, the sexuality of the age is depicted as it is today, which is a far cry from the sexual morays of society prior to penicillin and birth control pills. The so called sexual revolution is a phenomenon that was orchestrated by television. Almost every word of historical data surrounding sexuality of society is altered to promulgate the current attitudes. Revisionist have completely changed the truth. It is obvious that "science", partnering with television, has created public ambivalence and confusion concerning global warming. What about the polical television environment? Is it better to disguise the truth from people in all matters, because the truth is too difficult to deal with?
24 - Dr Dreadful
Ah, Howard's back. Seldom makes any sense whatsoever, but conjures up some interesting pictures.
"The sexual morays of society", for instance. I have this mental image of packs of horny eels ravaging unsuspecting bathers off the Atlantic coast of pre-industrial France. I'm surprised the phenomenon hasn't been covered in more depth by the historians of that period.
25 - Clavos
B-tone:
"You proved my point to some extent regarding what is short sighted and self serving. Go for the gold. Fuck the rest of it as long as I get mine."
The point of investing IS, as you derisively put it, to "go for the gold." Self serving? Of course; it's my money I'm investing to better myself and those I choose to share the benefits with. Short sighted? I don't see how; on the contrary, I tend to look at the long picture, which would indicate two things:
1. The present GW phenomenon is a part of a thousands of years cycle which is ongoing.
2. If #1 is true, and there's ample scientific evidence that it is, its existence owes little to human activity. That being the case, any plans for attempts to ameliorate the effects of human activity should not be undertaken lightly or precipitously. Looking for alternative fuel sources, an idea that transcends the GW issue, is worthwhile pursuit precisely because it encompasses issues of national security.
The Global Warming debate is much more about geopolitical and geoeconomic goals and ambitions than it is about science. Americans who uncritically accept the conclusions of a body like the UN (of which the IPCC is a part) are being, as Americans often are, very naive.