give it back(?)

Not too long ago, Al Gore was awarded (half of) the Nobel Prize for his mission across the world to generate awareness and foster a response to the problem of global warming.  What I thought was interesting was that after receiving his award, Al Gore openly (and in some ways rightly) stated: 

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."[1]

While he may have not intended this to be political issue--and he is certainly in the right on this--one cannot help but notice how it has become a key point in political discourse.  That being the case, it might be safe to assume that if it is such a part of the political rhetoric, it seems to have lost its original moral and spiritual motivation; for we all know that terms like "moral" and "spiritual" are quite bitter on the political palate.  

The statement about the moral and spiritual implications of addressing this issue was not the problem for me; what came next stimulated a little concerned:

"It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced, but it is also the greatest opportunity we have had to make changes."[2]

I find myself in agreement with the latter half of this statement, but I just cannot seem to endorse the former half.  With respect to the latter half, I do think we have a responsibility to find better ways of producing energy and to create more (energy) efficient means of transportation.  (The combustion engine is certainly in need of a replacement; but I do not think standard battery-electric systems are a better solution).  I also think we are in a better position now--technologically speaking--to find better options and to make them happen than we were several decades ago.  

With respect to the former half of Gore's statement, I do not believe this is the most dangerous challenge we have ever faced.  There are two key reasons why I think this.  First, the absolutism with which this is stated is fundamentally wrong.  At best, it is a relativistic claim about a present dilemma that appears to be progressing with unabated tenacity. (As such, it reflects tendencies and beliefs engendered by the Enlightenment project of the 18th century).  If that were the case, then I would be more prone to accept his argument; but because such is not necessarily the case, his argument does not have the effect that he thinks it does or desires it to have.  

Second, the argument is couched in terms of: this is a (or, "the") serious problem; we are primarily responsible for its existence; therefore, we need to own up to our fault and make immediate amends.  If this is the case, and if such human error has caused global effects; then, yes, this is a dangerous and immensely difficult challenge to address.  It would be like asking a small child to rebuild the estate (i.e., a ginormous house with lots and lots of land) that his or her parents destroyed because of their reckless behavior.  Gore's argument suggests that the only real explanation for global warming is human ill-concern and/or senseless emissions of greenhouse gases for the past few generations.  We, therefore, are like the child being asked to rebuild what out "parents" destroyed (or, at least severely damaged).

But what if, in the analogy, the parents are not necessarily at fault?  What if, in reality, the primary contributer to the problem is not human ill-concern and/or senseless behavior?  What if a leading cause to global warming was completely out of our control?  And what if global warming was not the most dangerous challenge every faced?  What would happen then?  

A short while ago, I came across this web-article, which prompted the question: "Does this mean Gore has to give back his award?"  The article presents the case--one that I argued for a while back--that solar activity is a leading (if not "the" leading) cause for warming and cooling cycles on Earth.  The key word in this case is "cycles", which is a variable commonly overlooked in typical (political) global warming presentations.  My earlier argument, and the article mentioned supports this, was that we really only have just under two centuries of data concerning temperature and climate changes.  (This is one key point where Gore's absolutism fails to convince).  Not only that, but the less than two centuries of data confirms that the world's climate goes in cycles--it has not been on a steady rise which will ultimately end in a global meltdown.  The one constant in these findings and in these cycles is the activity associated with the sun.  And if we think we can control the sun's activity; then, yes, the fight against global warming will be "the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced."