Global Warming and the Axiom of Choice

Who was the first scientist to warn of Global Warning? These questions are complicated, but I would say it was Bing Crosby in a paper called White Christmas. Here are the first two lines:

I'm dreaming of a white christmas

Just like the ones I used to know

Why are there no more white christmas's? Because global warming made it stop snowing!



Why do otherwise intelligent people refuse to believe that Global Warming is real and is caused by humans and we we need to do something about it? I have a conjecture and an analog. Here is what I think the reasoning is




Republicans have the following AXIOM (until they are in office): government IS the problem, not the solution. More than this, they think that there is NO problem that requires government action.


Consequence: Government should do NOTHING about Global Warming.


Since Government shouldn't do anything about Global Warming, it is not a problem.



Rather than rethink their AXIOM they accept the conclusion that Global Warming is either not a problem or not caused by humans. The shame of it is that there ARE economically viable ways, perhaps moderate republican ways, to fight global warming- some version of Cap-and-trade, or pay-to-pollute. And getting off of Fossil Fuels would be good for other reasons. I can picture history going a different way so that Republicans want more fuel-eff cars to get us off of Mideast Oil. I can picture a history where the insurance companies are more powerful than the oil companies for lobbying and hence Government takes LOTS of action against global warming.



Are their things in math where people accept an axiom despite its absurd consequences?Yes:


Most math people believe the Axiom of Choice.


Consequence: the Banach-Tarski Paradox





Rather than rethink their AXIOM they accept the absurd conclusion that you can break a ball into 5 pieces, reassemble, and get twice the volume. Fortunately, believing this does not endanger the planet.