Few topics in science today are as publicly controversial as global warming. Between climate scientists who dispute methods of data analysis to various interest groups lobbying governments armed with conflicting reports, this field of science is definitely heating up dramatically.

The scientific case for a changing climate comes from many empirical sources such as data about average global temperatures and changing weather patterns. The causes and consequences of these changes are the controversial elements. Certainly, no one factor is at the root of climate change, rather it is a combination of forces that create the earth's climate. Solar flares, volcanism, human activity and even previous climate change itself are all on the list of participants. There is even dispute as to when human activity began to increase the average temperature of the earth; some scientists theorize that greenhouse gas emissions began some 8000 years ago by our agrarian ancestors.

However, the vast majority of scientists do agree that human activity is leading to a dangerous heating of the earth. Indeed, representatives of the national science academies [pdf] of eleven nations (including the US National Academy of Science) agree that climate change is real and that reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is key to mitigating further climate change. The recent meetings of the G8 leaders also resulted in an agreement that people are creating increased levels of emissions which are a part of an acknowledged change in the earth's climate. The meetings, notably, did not result in any specific targets or timeframes for reducing these emissions.

The recent G8 agreement on climate change contains some vague language about starting a plan "to slow, and, as science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gasses." The line about science justifying action almost certainly was included due to some of the conflicting views about climatology. Some critics suspect that the US influences this lack of teeth in the agreement; the US was the only G8 nation not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Much of the controversy can be boiled down to two perspectives running contrary to the mainstream view. The first questions the conclusion that the globe is warming unnaturally due to human involvement and the other disputes the idea that this warming is necessarily a bad thing. As climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels puts it: "Get over it." He suggests that the urgency shown by many climate change activists has more to do with marketing than science, and that the notion that people will need government coercion to switch to renewable resources is not borne out by history.

Other so-called global warming contrarians dispute the conclusion drawn by Dr. Michael Mann that forms the basis of most popular climate change reports; the so-called "hockey stick". This graph indicates that global temperatures remained more or less constant until the 20th century, then took a remarkable upturn. The graph is often cited and reproduced, but some critics have taken issue with the data used to compile the hockey stick. They argue that localized events such as the "Little Ice Age" and the "Medieval Warm Period" were ignored and that the method used to infer temperatures was flawed.

There are also those who maintain that human behaviour is a negligible cause of any climate change, citing instead activity of the sun and historical reports of climate fluctuations. Some argue that fossil fuel use, in particular, cannot be held responsible for any climate change that may be occurring. Individuals and groups espousing these opinions often are quoted by those who oppose measures such as the Kyoto Protocol and funding for alternative energy sources. It should be pointed out that some of those authoring these opinions are paid by lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.

But, the point of this article is not to wade into the climate change debate. Indeed, while this area of science will continue to be fascinating as it develops in the next decades, it is somewhat overplayed. The switch to renewable resources, the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, and a general move to eliminate the use of fossil fuels does not rely on a consensus on the global warming issue. In fact, one does not have to "believe in" global warming at all to support so-called "green energy" initiatives, although the position of the US administration that climate change is not an urgent problem appears to contribute to the lack of any nationalized green energy initiatives.

Conventional wisdom shows that the burning of fossil fuels creates unhealthy side effects in the human environment. Anyone who has walked alongside a busy urban street can attest to the unpleasant smell and taste of car exhaust. Studies from around the world bear out this amateur assessment: the consumption of fossil fuels creates pollution which makes people sick. The health effects of pollution vary according to the amount and concentration of pollution, but experts agree that the burning of fossil fuels causes negative health effects.

However, you do not need to be even remotely concerned about pollution to be in favour of investing in and supporting renewable resources for power. Indeed, the main reason for many who switch to renewables is an entirely selfish one -- fossil fuels are increasing in price and will continue to do so indefinitely.

The very name -- non-renewable resource -- tells you everything you need to know about why humanity needs to develop an adequate power supply through means other than fossil fuels. Fossil fuels were only ever an interim solution to humanity's energy needs, and as the supply of oil and natural gas dwindles, the need to diversify our energy resources becomes more apparent. Exactly when the oil supply will run out is a topic with even more heated debate than climate change, but there is no question that unless we stop using it, one day we will have no more oil.

As the supply decreases, the laws of supply and demand are going to become patently obvious in the oil and gas industry. As the reserves of fossil fuels dry up, the cost of oil for heating and gasoline for vehicles will skyrocket. As consumers, it is in our own best interest to demand development of renewable resources. As manufacturers of goods that require fuel, the only possible alternative for the medium-term viability of our businesses is to develop goods that run on renewable fuel supplies. There may be five or fifty years of oil left in the ground, but when the cost to fuel your car is approaching the capital cost for the vehicle, car manufacturers offering hybrid, fuel-cell, or some other renewable fuel source vehicle will become runaway industry leaders. The companies who have done more research and development will have better products when they are required, and many people already would prefer cleaner transportation options.

While climatology is, indeed, both a relevant and interesting discipline to the current energy concerns, it is a far cry from the only science that we need to watch in order to inform our energy decisions. The health and economic benefits of researching, developing, and adopting renewable energy sources are undeniable. So, if you want to watch a good fight without resorting to Pay-Per-View, follow the climate change debate. If you want to help the world and your wallet, look for ways to kick the fossil fuel habit.

« Previous Next »