Global Warming: A Heated Debate
- jessicadawnruiz
- Jun 25, 2015
- 9 min read
Jessica Ruiz-Jones
5-1-2014
ENGL 299
Since the industrial revolution, people around the world have become accustomed to the use of modern conveniences. Trying to live one day without the use of our cars, computers, cell phones, and other technological devices would be difficult. From daily living to agriculture and more, human beings have found ways to make things easier by working smarter instead of harder. While we understand the vast array of ways this makes life easier, most are also aware of factors such as harmful emissions. In fact, the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970 was a result of the need to protect the public by setting and enforcing regulations to protect the quality of our air and water (Natural).
Global warming has been a result that many world leaders are paying close attention to, and they are warning the public that, through the continued use of vehicles, power plants, and more, we are damaging the ozone layer that protects us from the sun’s harmful rays. Statistics show that the problem branches out beyond higher temperatures. For example, the increase in wildfires across western United States have been recorded over the past 30 years. Lead study author Phil Dennison stated, “It’s not just something that is localized to forest or grasslands or deserts. Every region in the West is experiencing an increase in fire. These fire trends are very consistent with everything we know about how climate change should impact fire in the West (Live).
Most would agree that our actions are damaging the planet and our natural resources crucial for the sustenance of life on Earth; however there is evidence to suggest that popular advocates of global warming such as former vice president Al Gore have more to gain from the spread of the fear of global warming than the assurance that future generations are able to enjoy a long and healthy life. There are profits to be made by those who are making what seem to be selfless, valiant efforts to spread the word, and we should be weary of some of the claims being made.
It is important to understand the facts surrounding global warming and realize that there is evidence that strongly suggests that climates around the world are increasing in temperature. Since 1880, the average temperatures have increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit according to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the rate of the increase is becoming elevated. The last two decades of the 20th century have marked the hottest years in the past 400 with 11 of the past 12 years the warmest since 1850 (National). Not surprisingly, during this time scientists have concurrently observed a rapid melting of glaciers, bleaching of coral reefs, and an increase in severe weather events including heat waves, tropical storms, and wildfires. It would be irresponsible to assume these natural events are the result of coincidence considering their correlation with the use of in recent decades.
With the scientific evidence present to support the theory that global warming is a present threat, we must theorize about what is in store for future generations. The possibilities are grim and require our attention. For starters, by the end of this century, it is projected that the sea level could easily rise up to 23 inches. While this may seem nominal, a rise in just four inches could cause flooding in many of the South Sea islands. In addition, large parts of Southeast Asia could become swamplands. In the United States, states such as Florida and Louisiana are also at risk of substantial flooding. We will also experience water shortages as a result of the glaciers around the world melting as many regions are dependent on runoff for their fresh water supply. The ocean’s conveyor belt, or circulation system, would also transform, and this would result in a mini-ice age in Western Europe. To further exacerbate the problem, additional greenhouse gases would be released from the unlocking of methane in the permafrost. This would increase the rate of evaporation of much-needed water (National).
While these statistics are certainly cause for concern, there are professionals who discount the severity of the global warming theory, and they provide evidence that should be taken into consideration when determining the level of threat we are being told is just decades away from causing significant changes to life on earth. During the life of our planet, there have been numerous periods of high CO2 levels, and many scientists argue that this is simply a new cycle of warming that has been observed in years past. They make the point that, during the course of the scientific method, it is necessary to set out to disprove a theory, and those advocating the dangers of global warming have contradicted the process by setting out to prove their theories. Dr. Tim Ball, author of “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science,” stated, “The atmosphere is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system. No computer put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in support of global warming has been accurate, nor could ever be” (Somewhat).
There is a small group known as the Climate Research United of the University of East Anglia where much of the scientific data in support of global warming is propagated, and a recent leak of information has revealed further evidence in support of the views of Dr. Ball. The group, all members of the IPCC, exchanged revealing emails regarding the issue. Tom Wigley, former director of the CRU, admitted that the uncertainties in the cause of climate change will never be resolved because the data necessary to prove it is lacking. Therefore, the theories are still largely unproven, and the media helped spread false facts to the general public. Having a lack of scientific knowledge, Ball theorizes that this has led to an unnecessary hysteria. It is also reported that those scientists who challenged the theory of global warming were denied the funding necessary to prove or disprove their ideas, therefore basing the entire idea of global warming on misleading and biased information (Somewhat).
Where there is a large level of interest, unfortunately, there is money to be made, and it is suggested that clever entrepreneurs are profiting off of the fears of the public. This has resulted in an entirely new industry which has received massive governmental funding. Dozens of academic, political and bureaucratic careers have recently emerged although there is no clear evidence to blame mankind for the recent increase in global temperatures. In fact, further emails shared within the CRU revealed there is actually a growing concern for a cooling cycle that began in the late 1990’s, and today, the Earth is widely believed to be experiencing a cooling cycle rather than a warming one. Because of the increase in varying opinions regarding global warming, there have been a number of ludicrous claims such as the science around global warming is settled, and a growing number of people have begun to challenge the theory of global warming as a result. This prompted advocates to report to the public that cooling is caused by warming. Such absurd statements have caused even more skepticism (Somewhat).
With a better understanding of both sides of the argument, it is important to examine the position of high-profile advocates such as Al Gore and his partner, David Blood. Both men warned in their October 30th Wall Street Journal op/ed feature that global warming is a fact and will cause devastating results in the years to come. In his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” Gore elaborates on the supposed dangers and encourages people to do their part in deescalating the problem. While the men seem to be doing a public service, their true motives must be examined. It is no coincidence that Gore and Blood raised the profits of London-based GIM between 2008-2011 by nearly $218 billion from wealthy investors and institutions. In fact, in 2008, Gore put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, far more than he ever saw as vice president of the United States. While his run for presidency did not go as he had hoped, it seems Gore has found an even more lucrative market that he has taken full advantage of: the fear of the general population (Forbes).
Regarding Gore’s documentary, there is skepticism in countries all over the world. For example, Sir Michael Burton, a judge in London’s High Court, made the ruling that An Inconvenient Truth could be shown only in secondary schools providing the instructor was provided with the guidance notes necessary to balance the one-sided views held by the former vice president. He made the observation that the show’s “apocalyptical vision” was not an impartial analysis. He further stated that, “It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-vice president Al Gore, whose crusade is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that is not simply a science film, although it is based substantially on science research and opinion, but it is clearly a political film (Forbes).
Just weeks ago, the IPCC made public a report that further sparked the concerns of skeptics of the global warming debate. The report entitled “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report” is another that further predicts the horrendous consequences of carbon emissions. It urges the public to support the United Nations in instituting taxes, regulating fossil fuels, and subsidizing their use. An independent study was performed and revealed that the report was strongly biased and deliberately excluded and misrepresented evidence that did not support their claims. Reviewed by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, founded by atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, the report issued by the IPCC focuses on eight reasons for concern, and each were easily challenged (Forbes).
The first area for concern was the risk of death due to the rising sea levels. The NIPCC countered their argument with the fact that flood severity in many areas of the world were indeed higher during the Little Ice Age. They argue with data that there are larger contributors to flooding such as the construction of dykes and levees. The IPCC further admonishes to the risk of famine associated with drought, but the review performed by the NIPCC points out that parts of Asia and Africa are currently experiencing a rise in agricultural productivity and reaping large benefits. While the IPCC predicts an insufficient amount of drinking and irrigation water, the NIPCC was quick to retort once again. They pointed out in their extensive report that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 actually fosters growth-promoting microorganisms that aid plants in overcoming drought. Further CO2 increases would actually prove to be quite beneficial to the growth of vegetation by increasing growth rates and water use efficiencies.
It was also challenged that we risk the loss of marine ecosystems with the continual increase in CO2 emissions which would impact fishing communities around the world. While this sounds reasonable in theory, the NIPCC countered that possibility, too, with the consideration that increased temperatures and high atmospheric CO2 levels pose very little threat to aquatic life. In fact, a large number of species have displayed high tolerance to temperatures and CO2, some even displaying positive responses. As mentioned, there is currently no funding available for those advocates who challenge the global warming theory. Therefore, it can be easy for the public to discredit the trustworthiness of groups such as the NIPCC, however, the group consists of scientists from over 20 countries around the world, and they cite peer-reviewed studies to back up their claims (Forbes).
During his inaugural address, Franklin D. Roosevelt made the famous statement that “There is nothing to fear but fear itself,” and this quote stands true when it comes to the issue of global warming. As members of the general public, we are limited on the information we receive, and we rely strongly on the reports made by the media. It is clear that the advocates of the global warming debate are stakeholders with a lot to gain by the spread of fear of the possibilities associated with the presence of global warming, and it is important to consider the facts being presented by the opposing standpoint. By limiting our perceptions to one side of the debate, we support the select few who stand to make large profits in taxes and funding that we are willfully providing. There are two sides to every story, and the possibility that the global warming scare is being propagated by biased individuals to increase their own financial status is a very real possibility that must be taken into consideration before coming to false conclusions without exploring all sides of the debate.
Works Cited
Natural Resources Defense Council. “What’s the Risk From Industry’s Full-Scale Assault on the EPA and the Clean
Air Act?.” 2 December 2010.
Live Science. “With Climate Change, Wildfires Getting Worse in the West.” Becky Oskin. 18 April 2014.
http://www.livescience.com/.
National Geographic. “Global Warming Fast Facts.” 14 June 2007. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/
Somewhat Reasonable. “A History of the Disastrous Global Warming Hoax.” Alan Caruba. 31 March 2014.
Forbes. “Blood and Gore: Making a Killing on Anti-Carbon Investment Hype.” 3 November 2013.
תגובות