Precautionary and proactionary: global warming

Using the precautionary and proactionary approaches discussed in class, the outcomes of an important issue, global warming, will be decided by which of these two we use. Proactionary people believe that we should do all we can now to avoid global warming because of the extreme threat is poses to our society. Precautionary people, on the other hand, believe that we need more data in order to come to a concrete conclusion, and that we should not halt our progress until this happens. Precautionary and proactionary are interchangeable depending on if you view global warming as a threat to the planet or as a threat to business and development.

Global warming has become an incredibly skewed issue in all of our lives. This is largely because of the myriad of political interests that are tied to it. Oil, coal, and electricity are some of the wealthiest players in our society and global warming prevention is not healthy for their business. Politics has now overridden the most key aspect of global warming: the science. It's also my personal opinion that politics is the context in which most Americans view global warming. Take, for example, Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth. This alone shows how strong of a presence politicians have in this debate.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded takes a few pages to touch on the role meteorologists play in global warming. Hot, Flat, and Crowded argues that meteorologists don't discuss the impacts of global warming enough during their on-air sessions. It also claims that this is a vital opportunity to inform the public of the issues and return to the science of global warming. Do you think global warming is widely accepted by most Americans? Do you think it's viable to have global warming discussed on the air?