If Global Warming is False. Two options. If we do something, the worst possible outcome is global economic depression. If we do nothing, everyone is happy and life goes on.

If Global Warming is True. Two options. If we do something, we mitigate the effects. If we don’t, the worst possible outcome is global disaster (famine, death, economic depression, etc).

In the above scenerios we have two risks. Global Economic Depression and Global Disaster (including the economic depression).

The choice we must make is a simple matter of costs and benefits.

We must choose the lesser of the two risks.

Therefore, it only makes sense to do something about global warming (whether it is happening or not).

In terms of the science, there is plenty more reason than global warming to address the underlying issues of our fossil fuel dependence.

You’re welcome to debate the science, as long as you’re aware that fossil-fuel interests are the ones who are fueling it and trying to prolong our dependence on energy sources that are both killing and bankrupting us. If we make a strong move to low-carbon fuels (including nuclear, as we’ve argued here), it’s beneficial to all of humanity, save for the relative few who have vested interests in fossil fuels.

As if we needed another example, look at China, which just passed the U.S. as the top carbon emitter. It’s no coincidence that they also have the most toxic air pollution on the planet. Government has to shut down industry and restrict car use in an attempt to have some semblance of air quality for the Olympics. Otherwise, we won’t have to worry about China as a military threat. They’re going to pollute themselves out of existence. All thanks to fossil fuels.