Global Warming Debates - Essay Example

College: Global Warming The main debate that is going on currently is whether global warming is a fraud or not. There is irrefutable evidence that is causing debates that extreme weather events, temperature records, retreating of glaciers and the rising of sea levels, all go back to the fact that climate change is happening and at a faster rate than it was speculated. In order to fully engage in this world wide issue, it is important to state what global warming is. Global warming is defined as the increase in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere to the climatic changes. Scientists argue that the environmental issue is as a result of carbon dioxide and air pollution causing a trap of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. Controversy in the global warming debate has been wrought by the existence of two contravening arguments about the phenomenon’s causes. On one side of the debate, some scientists contend that global warming is natural, while on the other, others are emphatic that it is as a result of human activity. Despite the continued debate, evidence leans more towards support of anthropogenic or human-caused `global warming, as opposed to excessive rise in global temperatures linked to natural causes. According to research conducted by the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), the Earth surface has been growing increasingly warmer over the past three decades, more than in any of the preceding decades since the mid 19th century. The panel’s summative report indicates that the period between 1983 and 2012 was perhaps the warmest period within the Northern Hemisphere (IPCC 3). The IPCC research indicates that greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from various human activities are the key causative factors of global warming. The combinative study indicates that GHGs have increased significantly especially since the emergence and growth of industrialization. For instance, rapid advancement of industries has resulted in an unprecedented increase in atmospheric concentration of Methane gas, Carbon Dioxide, and Nitrous Oxide. Further analysis by the scientists suggests that approximately 40 percent of the emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, whereas the remnant is stored in soils, plant and in oceans. The study conclusively reports that within the global environment, the growth in population and concurrent development of global economies have continued to be the key drivers of rise in GHGs. This is especially the case for Carbon Dioxide emissions released from combustion of fossil fuels (IPCC 4). It is imperative to note that, the IPCC comprises of representatives from approximately 190 nations reporting on scientific findings from their respective countries. This implies that the report combines independently conducted research, which makes it free of bias. In addition to addressing the causative factors of global warming, the IPCC report also highlights some potential impacts of climate change resulting from global warming. These indicators of the negative impact of global warming include melting snow and changing precipitation patterns are changing the globe’s hydrological cycles. These changes affect not only the quantity, but also the quality of water resources. As a result, numerous marine, freshwater, and terrestrial species have changed their geographical niches, migration patterns, and seasonal activities. When an environmental firm does the research in order to prove that global warming does exist their results will be skewed. For instance, if the glaciers are known to be melting for instance in Russia, but some glaciers are actually thickening in Antarctica and Canada, the scientists may opt to leave out the data that do not support their argument (Singer 20). At one time Benjamin Disraeli once said that there are three lies: damn lies, lies and statistical lies. It is always easy to fabricate data when presenting it to an audience in order to support or solidify once approach. By scientists providing certain information to the world, people start to believe what is presented to them. For instance, when the scientists present to the people that five or even less glaciers are melting, the people conclude that all glaciers in the world are melting, regardless of how untrue this could be. A Naval geologist called Chylek reported that while some glaciers in the world were taking a melting trend, glaciers in Antarctica were following an opposite trend and getting thicker (Chylek 443). This evidence was not clear whether the temperatures were getting warmer, colder or remaining the same. It is a belief that global warming is an issue that scientists want the people to believe. In the year 1994, federal courts drew some guidelines that would determine what kind of science would be acceptable in court. In the early 90’s lawsuits regarding global warming was established and the courts added a sub-section of the guidelines that prevented speculator testimony from being presented as scientific evidence. The law court practically ruled that the scientific evidence supporting global warming was not credible. A physicist additionally said that failure in taking decisive action on the scientific community over the scientific methods used and the resulting waste of resources spent on the enormous research conducted on global warming was due to the extensive scientific scandal that would arise (Sunstein 27). The physicist argued even though the global warming deniers were regarded flawed lacked evidence due to scientific knowledge, scientist are not authorized to fill in environmental blanks with their own assumptions. These results to a poor scientific practice and should not be accepted in the scientific community. Sunstein says that there is no evidence whatsoever available that can permit scientists regardless of their experience, to predict any form of climate pattern within reasonable accuracy. He suggests that since that kind of science is not available, the scientists continue filling in the blanks in order to justify global warming. Yes, scientists provide an expert opinion, presenting it as science (Sunstein 27). There are many theories in existence, explaining the phenomenal global warming. Environmental activists argue that global warming is a great threat to the human race, and every other living thing, claiming if the people don’t change their way of living, the earth on the other hand will self-destruct. The activists claim that people will deplete natural resources and will result in the destruction of the atmosphere causing it to be uninhabitable. The factual truth is that on average the surface temperature has risen in less than half of a degree Celsius since the year 1967 (Sunstein 287). He additionally states that the small rise in surface temperature is as a result of urbanization. The city structures and pavements give off as well as absorbing more heat than a forest or field. For instance, in Houston, Texas is an environment that has grown in population over the last three decades; the temperature has gone up with almost one degree Celsius. A researcher called David Rind and Judith Lean explain in an interview organized by the Meteorological American Society that half of the experienced surface warming since the start of the 19th century, and the one third of the warming in 1970 was a result of the sun. The team argued that climatic variability occurs during higher and lower level radiations given by the sun. Additionally, they argued that while surface temperatures had gone up, the atmospheric temperatures had remained constant, varying in different parts of the world resulting in an almost zero changes (Sunstein 78). This is enough evidence supporting that global warming is a fabricated phenomenon that is as a result of surface temperatures warming up at a very slow rate due to urbanization and not due to polluted atmospheres (Sunstein 100) After so much debate and discussions about how bad global warming is, NASA reported that according to their space study analysis for the year 2000, December 2007 to November 2008 was the coolest. Their data also revealed that the hottest decade in the 20th century was in the 1930s and not 1990s as it is to be expected according to global warming predictions. The UN Environment Program reported that the reason for the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas was not global warming, but due to the local warming effect of a massive “atmospheric brown cloud” that is over the region (Sunstein 100). The cloud is made of soot particles from Asia’s increased burning of fossils. Just like monopoly is bad for the economy, yet it exists, the same is for anti-climate change. Monopoly companies are there to make as much profit as possible; this does not make them evil or unrealistic for profit is good for business. Anti-global warming groups have their reasons for existence. They do not see the whole point of global warming since most of the predicted information given by the 99% of the scientists has been there for centuries yet so little is happening in actual life. So the group is curious whether it’s global warming or it’s another phenomenon that is being ignored since global warming is the main attention of all climate scientists. The skeptics do agree global warming is real, but the big question is, are human activities the cause of rising of temperatures? Additionally, criticism is healthy. When global warming scientists are being criticized, they tend to work harder and have more accurate results to prove skeptics wrong. So, I feel that more money should be bumped to the anti-climate change with the aim of perfecting statistics reported by scientists who are heavily researching on global warming. Many people claim that global warming is obvious making the arguments against it fall. However, what is obvious in most cases, it’s not true. More than 17, 000 scientists have already signed a petition showing there is no evidence of global warming. Skeptics feel that global warming scientists do not want to acknowledge that human activities are not the main cause of global warming. They want the people to continue to believe that global warming is caused by human beings. The main worry is that they do not want to try and investigate other causes that are outlined by skeptics. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human activities releasing carbon, greenhouse gases causing or will cause temperature changes in the future. The scientists researching on global warming have everything to gain by not researching on other causes. Who likes being wrong anyway? It would be such a shame if they proved that other factors are the main causes of climate change. Global warming deniers believe that computer models used to predict the earth’s future under global warming are not credible. According to the skeptics, computer models give a mere guess of what could happen. How many times have the scientists predicted the weather and failing? What makes it different if they misinformed the people by using the same computers? Some climatologists do not deny that computer models sometimes give a poor guess. Around 9th to 14 century, some regions around experience increase in temperature, an event named medieval warm period. What happened then is similar to what we see today. After this period, the earth experienced little ice age with temperatures cooling globally. It is very much convincible that what the world is experiencing today could be similar to medieval warm period. The main point is that people, scientists included do not know enough about the long term whether changes for certain. It is important to note that skeptics do not dismiss global warming outright, they just do not agree or believe that human activities are responsible. It is believed that skeptics could be reporting biased data in order to mislead the government or institutions fighting use of fossils, but what harm would it cause if global warming scientists took time and tried something different to prove causes of global warming? Why wouldn’t they include data from regions where icebergs are getting larger? The people are not very well equipped with global warming knowledge and the main concern is that while environmental organizations continue to discuss about global warming, how will the people know that while they were trying to prevent global warming could actually cause more harm. The universe, especially the environment is very unpredictable and an unstable medium with no rules set for what is supposed to happen. My stand is that global warming is not a threat and it is a hoax phenomenal that scientists prove with biased statistics. The worry is if the people continued to prevent global warming consequences could be harmful. What if the environmental agencies accomplished their goal of cooling the world end up thickening glaciers and causing longer winters? Work Cited Chylek, P. "Global warming and the Greenland Ice Sheet." Climatic Change (2004): 443. Print. Sunstein, Cass. "Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and Environment." Remote Sensing of Environment (2003): 27. Print. IPCC. Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Web. 14 December 2014. Read More