OPINON:We need sound policy, not political punching bag, on global warming

For skeptics, global warming is the Y2K of this decade, a great wash of sound and fury from the media signifying nothing.

Personally, the argument about global warming pits the gut versus the head.

I’m anxious about all kinds of stuff. So my gut reaction to global warming talk is to turn off the TV, flip the radio dial or simply change the subject. There’s so much in the world that troubles me. And I hate to add to that list.

Emotionally, I’m very ready to accept the skeptics’ view. I have little stamina for the doomsday voices.

But I can’t logically dismiss global warming as some vast left-wing conspiracy based in a liberal, anti-corporate agenda. The liberal wand is waved over the large number of scientists who concur on global warming. And that sweeping accusation of leftist intent is supposed to put our minds at ease and assure us that all is good.

Yet, I think more of those scientists — and of science — than that.

Here’s why: The advance of human technology — including our modern industrial age, which has led to so many comforts — has not been rooted in right-wing or left-wing ideologies, but in the rigorous pursuit of provable truths through the scientific method. The conclusion that the earth revolved around the sun was certainly a political powder keg when Copernicus informed the world that we are not at the center of the solar system. This was heretical, but true. Scientists came to the right conclusion — not out of political leanings — but because they based their answer on available evidence. The political power of the day did not dictate the truth. Over the long haul, it never does.

Skeptics who want us to see a political conspiracy in the science community also ask us to accept that scientists who warn us of global warming have forsaken their commitment to provable truth in favor of a big, scary lie aimed at liberal gains. I can’t accept that motivation as plausible.

Whether or not you accept the premise of global warming, you can’t deny that humankind is a force of nature, very capable of affecting the environment in small and vast ways. Think of two people sucking on Marlboro Reds in your living room. Now, consider 20 of them lighting up, for a day, a week, a decade. I think the analogy can apply on larger scales, too, especially considering the billions of people on the planet, the cars, machines, the industry, along with the reduction of forestlands that absorb carbon dioxide.

While the earth has seen major fluctuations in temperatures over time, the planet has never before experienced an industrial age accompanied by a population explosion.

Scientists say our great industrial revolution has its not-so-great influence on our climate. They have long spoken of the “greenhouse effect.” And I don’t see this as a Looney Tune idea. It makes sense that the continued increase in greenhouse gases will have a long-term impact on atmospheric composition. We can argue the extent of this effect, the merely unpleasant versus the doomsday, but I don’t see how you can simply dismiss the effect as a liberal conspiracy.

Nevertheless, our local Republican Congressional candidates stood on stage at the county’s lone high school last month and scoffed at all the Chicken Little liberals.

Blaming the liberal has long been a political sport. It may play well in crowds and soothe anxieties. But it’s an overly simplistic answer to a credible long-term threat. When it comes to global warming, we need a sound policy, not a political punching bag.

Zach Mitcham is editor of The Madison County Journal.