Okay. That's a bit of a joke. I was looking up other possible interpretations for AGW and one was All Going Well.
In a recent episode of Moyers and Company, six shades of opinion in regard to climate change were identified. They ranged from Very Worried through Could Be a Problem all the way to It's A Hoax.
I have friends in all camps. I am firmly to the left side of the bar, assuming that the right end of the bar is the Hoax camp. That is to say, I believe it's quite likely. If that sounds too lukewarm for some of you, it's because I don't feel at all competent to argue on the science. The science is all about numbers, and they are just not my forte. There don't seem to be memory cells in my brain that store statistics. The things just bounce off my eyeballs and land with a thud on my eardrums. Nothing penetrates.
I do relate to pictures. This one, for instance, shows a great variety of spikeage from year to year, and yet that solid red line of five-year averages just plugs right along a steady upward slope. This site addresses some of the common assertions of the detractors. For you detractor fans, this site is among those crying foul.
Here's my take: I tend to agree that Al Gore et al. are quite correct, that the earth likely faces enormous climate changes that have been exacerbated and accelerated by human activity. However, scientists have been wrong before and I, personally, cannot guarantee that they are correct this time. Although I have to say, our sources of information are a tad more reliable than in previous centuries.
Whatever. I cannot but think that were we to take the advice of the AGW believers and change our habits to avert the oncoming catastrophe they predict, we would all be better off no matter what.
There is only so much oil left in the earth, and the stuff is useful for so many more things than energy that using most of it for making toast or going to Grandma's for Thanksgiving seems downright wasteful. Perhaps we could dial down those uses and save untapped sources for a time when we really need them. In the meantime, we could up our chops on efficient and safe extraction.
There are better, more efficient and aesthetic ways to plan communities, taking the land itself into consideration, respecting things like flood plains and natural disaster proclivities. I suggested one sourcebook for those ideas on Tuesday of this week.
There are myriad ways in which lessening our carbon footprints not only reduces the CO2 in the atmosphere but also adds some quality to our own lives in terms of health, wealth and welfare.
I also think there are more creative ways to produce alternative energy than massive fields of solar collectors or endangering migratory birds. So I don't believe that championing every single solar or wind farm that comes along is the best way to go about things.
But on the whole, thinking about what a good life might look like fifty years from now, not only for us but for the world as a whole, proceeding with creative change in the way we live can't hurt. And if we make those changes and avert the catastrophic effects that have been projected, who cares if the other AGW's claim they were right all along. It won't really matter. Because by that time, things will be, indeed, AGW. All Going Well.