climate change. Does it matter? no

It seems that there are two sides of an argument which both wrap themselves in the banner of science. One side urges action against an impending disaster while the other claims that the record suggests otherwise and we should remain calm. While it's very hard to make sense of much of the data both sides cite, I found wisdom in the words of someone who is not even credentialed on the environmental debate. Christopher Hitchens was once asked what his opinion of the global warming debate was. Hitchens is regarded as a bittingly witty, hyper-intellectual with alternative views on issues that are hard to shake. When asked this curveball of a question, hitchens responded as an intelligent and wise person who has to make a decision with little information. His answer was "I don't think it matters whether global warming exists or not, that is not the issue. If we had a couple of extra planets, we could conduct plenty of tests and ascertain the truth beyond reproach. However, we have only one planet and we can not afford to be wrong on this issue. There is no room or time to test these theories." What struck me about this point of view is that when faced with a decision about an issue for which he has almost no information, he derived a logical criteria with which to make sense of the issue.

Both web sites list many counter-arguments to known questions and cite scientific data to reinforce their claims. I found that the pro-global warming (if thats the proper name) had more information and a stronger set of counter-arguments while the other one was more sparse. I can respect the bias for truth in science that both sides have, however it does bother me that one side feels it is wise to use a scientific jargon to ease concerns about the existence of global warming. A science teacher posted a video on youtube where he creates a punnett square to apply pascals wager to the climate change issue. For as much as I hate pascals wager, it did have a strong relevance to this issue. The teacher designated one axis "GW: True/Not True" and the other axis "We Act/ We Do Not Act". He explained through game theory what the risks and rewards are. His basic argument was that if we act and gw is true, we lose nothing but gain a new way of life that is more sustainable, if we do not act and it is true we lose everything. If we act and gw is true, we triumph. If we do not act and gw is not true, nothing happens. Cleary we have everything to gain from treating gw as a fact (regardless of its truth) and nothing to gain and everything to lose if we do not act (regardless of whether it is true). How could you not treat gw as a serious issue? Given these scenarios, it is very disturbing that a website beleives that dispelling gw "myths" is a wise course of action.