The warming of a debate

A clever remark about the debate of global warming:

In an age where many of us believe that science has all the answers, while others believe that religion has all the answers, a clever mixture of science and religion can be very powerful. (#)

Greenie Watch gets the credit for the hat tip.

And why this extreme passion around the issue of (possible) human-induced effects on the Earth's climate? It has been demonstrated that fighting the real or imagined human-induced climate changes is not only an extremely expensive and impoverishing act, but also as close to hopeless as possible. Put in another perspective, by fighting climate change by punishing humans for their lifestyles will create poverty (or stop enrichment) and change nothing for the Earth's climate. And since this is the case (and the Warmers don't refute this as much as they try to create panic), why not use the resources on something a little more constructive? Drilling holes for water and pumping money into the HIV- and malaria-campaign are obvious examples. Why not shift the focus from something vague and mysterious to something that kills people every day? Why this passion for the climate change-debate?

One could present a theory to explain this complete lack of perspective: By fighting malaria, thirst and hunger, one does not gain political influence in the rich West. The Red Cross and Amnesty International don't promote politicians. The institutes promoting the human cruelty towards Earth's climate do. The Warmers can beg for money and influence to "prove" that humanity is sending humanity into the Global Warm-age (or Ice-age, depending on the decade we look at). The politicians can say that they understand that "action" is needed, and "action" does, of course, mean increased tax-funding to those who shout the loudest.

But of course this is just a theory. Who knows why global warming, out of all the real or unreal problems of the world, receives this attention, let alone political attention.