Global warming critics

I received a lot of comments about my Plane vs Train post last week, with the last one from a critic of Global Warming.  See below: 
“Carbon footprint is such a stupid concept as is this whole global warming farce. Attacking the idea is like attacking religion.

Here’s a question for the Global Warming advocates: If science has long since proven the existence of several ice ages, why is it that people don’t believe that temperatures are cyclical because of a multitude of reasons (e.g., cyclical solar activity)? The resources being wasted on questionable global warming science is out of whack with the real science.”


My anonymous reader is hot and bothered by the idea of global warming.  I feel I need to share my thoughts on the subject.  Yes, I agree that there is a cyclical pattern to the temperature of our Earth.  Yes, I agree that there is a possibility that we are in a cycle of increasing air and water temperatures.  What I don’t agree with is using this as an excuse to do nothing but further pollute our environment.  What the past several ice ages didn’t face was industrialization, and a rapidly expanding human population.  They didn’t have SUVs on the roadways, bananas in Boston in January, or China.  My feeling is that if there is some truth to the “whack” science of global warming, don’t we owe it to ourselves and our children to try and improve our world?  Why wouldn’t we, especially when there is a chance that all those critics are actually wrong.  What, exactly, do we have to lose?  Pride?  I’m sorry, but no one will remember if the global warming proclaimers were wrong, as they are helping to inspire a host of new industries of renewable resources, smart energy grids and more.  


So, to the critics of global warming, my challenge is this. Why not?  What is the harm in finding ways to produce energy more efficiently, reduce our waste and consumption, and limit the number of miles our food travels to our dinner plates.  Why not?