Regardless of evidence, there seems to be an overriding claim to ignorance used by both sides of the political divide (the enlightened and the unenlightened) as to whether Global Warming is a reality or a hoax. The scientific debate is a singular perspective, someone is right and someone is wrong as to whether temperatures are increasing. However, this is only one possible perspective, and the others are far more approachable. I intend to be brief with this exploration.

Global Warming Defined: "Human activities have caused the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years, accompanied by retreating alpine glaciers, rising sea levels and shifting climate zones. Scientists believe that global warming will lead to changes in wind patterns, precipitation and frequency and type of severe weather events. This in turn could have significant environmental and economic consequences" ( 4 ).

The Scientific Argument: Satellite and other instruments of temperature measurement have offered results stipulating that the Earth's temperature is increasing, and these results correlate with human activity including but not limited to industrial production, commerce, and cow pies. The evidence is considered by some to be overwhelming, but most of these people do not have interests in the short term profits provided by eliminating the Earth's reserves of fossil fuels and potentially destroying life itself in the process.

The Economical Argument: The dichotomy of the energy lobby is a representation of the powerful economical interests involved, many of which seek to control the scope of political discussion. If global warming were overnight accepted as a real problem, the actions of many dissenters would be quite criminal by nature as it is accepted that the environment is being visibly destroyed by their actions. It is necessary to connect dissenters with those reaping the profits in this case, because the powerful energy lobby exists for the very purpose of propagating these interests. However, there is also another side of the coin, even though the "alternate energy" (non fossil fuels) also has substantial clout, now involved in receiving government contracts. This side of the coin is rather small though; considering that between the years of 2003-2006, the energy lobby contributed 58,300,000$ to state campaigns while the alternative energy lobby contributed about 500,000$, the former 116.6 times as much as the latter ( 1 ).

The Political Argument: The political argument appears to be a representation of public opinion, and in a March 2009 Gallup poll, 41% of those polled claimed to believe that global warming was "exaggerated" while 59% believed it was correct/underestimated ( 2 ). On political leanings alone, a clear picture can be gleaned from alternate sources about beliefs of global warming. "This change in thinking about global warming also spans the political spectrum. A majority of Democrats (87 percent), Republicans (56 percent) and Independents (82 percent) all say they are now somewhat or much more convinced that global warming is happening than they were two years ago" ( 3 ). In many respects, the political argument alludes the economical argument, as "the belief that industries should be required to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to help reduce global warming was consistent among respondents across a wide range of ages, but there was some division along political party lines. Eighty-one percent of Democrats said major industries should be required to cut greenhouse gas emissions, while 61 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of Independents agreed" ( 3 ).

The God Argument: Many religions offer solace in the idea that human life will not end with nuclear war or an anthropic global catastrophe, as clear depictions of end times scenarios allude to something quite different. If these texts are correct, they offer a comfort to believers and further vindication for the rift which has developed between religion and science.

My Proposed Solution: It seems that no amount of scientific data will be enough to override the bizarre beliefs of certain persons, in no certain direction. I have a two thronged proposal though, which I believe that Republicans, Democrats, and all others will find agreeable.

Part One: Whether or not global warming is a reality, it is unacceptable to possess the mindset that the earth is an infinite wastebasket. Even if global temperature is not increasing, or decreasing, as citizens of the world we all possess a moral obligation to ensure the continued existence of our species and the lands we inhabit.

Part Two: This is the more important part of the global warming solution I have devised, designed specifically to target those with unscrupulous interests in mind. A law will be passed in which all persons exceeding the age of 18 will be required to sign as to whether or not they believe that global warming is real, a simple list of yes and no. As definitive knowledge becomes available (obvious in the next thirty years) those who have signed the wrong list, those who were wrong about global warming, must cut off their smallest finger, to be displayed in a newly created " Museum of Scientifically Inept Fingers ".

Allow me to be the first to sign.

Yes, Global Warming is Real.
I hereby pledge that I believe global warming to be true , that human activities have contributed to a change in global climate, and solemnly swear to personally eviscerate a pinky finger if the future demonstrates that my views were incorrect.
1. Schallerbrandon
2. Jsolberg
3.
4.
5.

No, Global Warming is Not Real.
I hereby pledge that I believe global warming to be false , that human activities have not contributed to a change in global climate, and solemnly swear to personally eviscerate a pinky finger if the future demonstrates that my views were incorrect.
1. Sarah Palin
2.
3.
4.
5.

(1)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_lobby

(2)- http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/increased-number-think-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

(3)- http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/hurricanepoll.htm

(4)- http://canadaonline.about.com/od/climatechange/g/globalwarming.htm

Brief Troll Refutation:

The recent exposure of emails between scientists by hackers on specifically how to model global warming statistics in a convincing way has convinced some that global warming is a farce. The reality however is that even though these scientists were attempting to "manipulate data", this process of "manipulating data" is completed by just about every business/corporations which seeks to be successful. Observe simply quarterly profit reports, or advertisements; image is everything, particularly when the population is ignorant enough to be convinced by an energy lobby.

That said, even if the problem is simply smoke, and the temperature of the earth is not increasing, we must recognize immediately that this is not a free ticket to treat the environment as an "infinite waste dump" and must curb pollution tendencies regardless of potential temperature increases. Environmental law needs adequate enforcement, which obviously will decrease our standard of living, but it is necessary considering the negative results which emerge from a complete lack of regulation (see current financial crisis).

Perhaps this particular breed of troll will appreciate the following line of thought: Pascal's Wager (aka "Pascal's Gambit is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose") (source: wiki ). Quite obviously, living green has very little to lose (similar to the observation that living as though god exists does have losses of a debatable quantity) however the potential of continuing to act recklessly is far greater and one might compare it quite accurately with hell, or a living hell, or the end of life altogether. I want to write QED here.