Anthropomorphic Global Warming? Sure, Why Not.

     This is a conversation I've had with my father way too many times:

Me: Yes, Dad, the ten hottest years on record all occurred since 1990.

Dad: Well how do you know we are causing it? The sun is getting hotter right? Besides the earth        goes through natural warm and cold periods.

Me: I can't tell you exactly how we know, but I trust the experts on the issue, the scientists who                dedicate their lives to this sort of thing, not the politicians who deny or exploit it for political gain.

Dad: Well they haven't proven it yet have they? They keep changing their minds. First it was global warming, then it was climate change, and now its global warming again. 

     That's enough, you get the point. Some people will not accept the reality of anthropomorphic climate change (I myself prefer this term better actually, not because it downplays the problem at hand but because I think it does quite the opposite). More info on whats in a name here. I don't know why we have all these scientists when we don't use them, except, of course, when its convenient. What I also find interesting is that there is a distinct pattern of people who accept man-made global warming. Its overwhelmingly conservatives who deny it, and liberals who accept it, and I'm assuming moderates are somewhat mixed. As much as I know about the psychological differences between cons and libs,  I can't really think of a reason why there is such a chasm in the case of global warming. Maybe it speaks to the power that politicians can have over their followers. We ought to influence them in my opinion, not the other way around. After all, the electorate wields the power doesn't it? 

     In my opinion, it doesn't matter if we are really causing global warming. "Blasphemy!" shouts Al Gore. But that also does not mean I think we shouldn't do something about it. I think of the whole global warming scenario like being sick, but instead of a person being sick, its the planet. Let me demonstrate: If I go to the doctor, that is to say, a medical expert, with some bodily warming, aka a fever, I expect him to try his best to figure out what the hell is wrong with me. He tells me that it is either caused by A, of it is caused by B. In the case of A, there is no cure. But in the case of B, there is a cure, but it will inconvenience me greatly, and still might not work. I think of this as a no brainer, regardless of the odds that it will work, or even how slight the chances are that it is caused by B, I am definitely going to undergo said treatment. And I don't think I'm alone on this one.

     In the case of climate change, I find my argument to hold up even stronger. There is a scientific consensus on the cause of climate change, and we know exactly how to reverse it. So even if there are still many people who still deny it, why don't we err on the side of great caution and do something about global warming.