Sitting here on our radiant little planet, filled with all these wonderful pieces of technology that remind me how lazy we are, and blinded by the light of all the human races blisteringly bright byproducts — or perhaps thats the huge fusion reaction that powers our solar system, reflecting off those byproducts — I find I’m really curious about the following things regarding global warming, given all the hype, and pointless chatter:

0) Wouldn’t the sun always be the cause? No matter what other thing the sun interacted with?

*shrug* Simple enough for me.

1) What difference does it make if the global warming is man-made or not?

We know the process can be the result of man’s presence, and is likely the result of man’s presence (because we’re here and its happening — that raises the likelihood), and that it could also be the result of any number other of things too, or as likely some combination of both.

More relevantly, we know: if it is man made, the planet gets hot, species may die, and habitats will change. We know also, if it is not man made: the planet gets hot, species may die, and habitats will change. There is not really seeming to be any strategic advantage in understanding “Who or What” is the cause, if we look at it that way. Besides, I think, the truth is, we’re at the top of the food chain, so, we’re responsible for dealing with this either way.

So, whats next? Perhaps we should waste more time addressing whether its natural or not.

Yeah, thats a good idea!

2) How would man-made global warming be any less natural than what some people are saying is “natural” global warming?

What!? To this I say, “Quit being so ridiculous” — and lo, some of these people I’m talking to are scientists, for shame! Human beings and their actions by virtue of their existence on this planet, and in this universe, are natural; or made via nature.

Technology is only a byproduct of our natural existence; all species have some kind of resultant byproduct(s), technology is ours. So, lets not flatter ourselves about having a technology, instead, lets figure out how to make our technology flatter our habitat.

3) Why do people waste time on the taxonomy of all this when there are more important questions like the next one?

4) Regardless of how or why things are changing (regardless of the culprit) — be it “man-made” or “natural” — is it truly the responsibility and in best interest of our species, to attempt to circumvent or in any way alter these aforementioned processes that are involved in our habitat changing? Or simply, should we?

5) Should we change this planet, or maybe should we change? Either where, or how we live?

I believe the important questions, or at least the most impacting for our future, has always been these questions I’ve marked #4, and #5, despite everyone’s focus on #1 and #2, or most aptly in the dealings of my #3.

Because of all the questions brought, or concerns raised by science, none will ever offer a good strategy in dealing with the philosophical bind of presenting questions like “Should we…” — Science only likes to answer “Can we…” questions — and thats where it works best.

In all these cases that we believe to be causes for global warming, or frankly most of our other human problems et all, had we only taken the time to ask “should we” then, we may not be dealing with this much more pressing question of “should we” now.

In any event though, we should be forgiving the details of the nonsense in between, because the stakes are always the same — life threateningly high. The question for science will soon be, “Can we survive?”