I hope you enjoy it. It is a bit out of the norm. :)
An Inconvenient Paper—The “Crisis” of Global Warming?
Global warming has been called a crisis. It has been called a disaster. Countries worldwide have been informed that it may affect the very survival of mankind. The potential for destruction is a picture that has been painted vividly in the minds of millions throughout the world—a picture of hurricanes, famines, heat surges, and water shortages. However, even these descriptions pale in comparison to those offered by the media, by politicians, and by several scientists. To any person in the literate world, the topic at hand is easy to recognize, and equally easy to fear.
With all of the publicity, the contradictory opinions, and the general hysteria surrounding the alleged “crisis,” the truth about global warming is difficult to uncover. Indeed, it would seem as though any information regarding this topic must be taken with a grain of salt—or perhaps two. Because global warming has become a very one-sided issue, it is only through careful research that one may discover the legitimate scientific evidence that suggests global warming is neither manmade nor a threat to human beings.
In fact, it would seem that is more of a threat to the wallets of American citizens. David Bellamy, a Professor of Botany at the University of Nottingham, and a respected naturalist, declared that, “It has cost the world around $ US 50 billion to spread global warming doom and gloom” (Bellamy). Many people who disbelieve that humans are responsible for creating global warming suggest that it is a scam—a way for the government to make a quick dollar. This becomes rather justified when one analyzes the profit that global warming is producing. One individual in particular has made a considerable profit from this heightened sense of caution and fear—Al Gore. In the past several years alone, he has won a Nobel Peace Prize, sold a bestselling novel, and produced a popular film—all thanks to global warming. These accomplishments all seem somewhat ridiculous, however, when one considers that Al Gore really doesn’t practice what he preaches. Ironically enough, he puts out more carbon than the majority of people on earth. His concern for global warming doesn’t seem deep enough to interfere with his personal life—a hypocrisy that is often overlooked.
However, it appears as though he is not the only one to take advantage of this issue. Environmental organizations thrive off of the public’s belief in global warming. Several politicians have included global warming as a key issue in their various campaigns. They swear up and down to try to resolve this issue, while realistically there may be no way for people to do such a thing. Many of their campaigns are dependant on the fear that global warming strikes into the hearts of voters. Insurance companies also blindly support global warming because if it exists, they benefit from government efforts to prevent it and the damage it may cause to their clients. If global warming does not exist, they lose nothing anyway—a win-win situation (Baden and O’Brien).
Perhaps because of the profit that global warming so easily creates, reporting on this issue has become rather one-sided. Nobody seems willing to consider that global warming could be, as the founder of the Weather Channel calls it, ‘The greatest scam in history’ (Coleman). Few individuals research the issue enough to know that there is even another side to consider. Perhaps this is because there is overwhelming evidence suggesting that discussion of this alternative opinion is exactly what the government doesn’t want. Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said, “In the summer of 1988, Lester Lave, a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, wrote to me about being dismissed from a Senate hearing for suggesting that the issue of global warming was scientifically controversial” (Lindzen). This seems a rather harsh punishment for a man who was merely suggesting that both sides of an issue should be heard—especially whereas Mr. Lave was neither arguing for or against global warming. This is only a mere excerpt that Lindzen presents regarding the governmental impatience with criticism of global warming. He cites his own experiences as well, recalling that when he was invited to attend a symposium regarding global warming, his opinion was rejected entirely although he was the only scientist in attendance with a group of environmentalists. To voters, this should be a major cause of concern about the close-mindedness of those who are representing American citizens. In the rather disturbing words of Claudine Schneider, a congressman at the meeting, “Scientists may disagree, but we can hear Mother Earth, and she is crying” (qtd in Lindzen).
Unfortunately, it would seem as though this trend of ignorance has only continued into the present day. Global warming advocates openly criticize anyone who dares to question their motives or scientific credibility. One journalist even went so far as to say, “…global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” (Goodman). When confronted regarding global warming critics, Al Gore, who is no more a scientist than the above mentioned congressman Claudine Schneider, took a similar approach by stating that anti-global warming ideals are nothing more than a conspiracy theory—a claim that many Americans associate with a lack of credibility and believability. Modern media coverage of anything that critiques global warming is limited at best, while environmentalists boldly proclaim that the end is near. Perhaps, then, a more worthy cause for concern should be what the media isn’t reporting.
Aside from getting little or no media coverage, anything that criticizes global warming in public education has nearly been eliminated. Julian Simon suggests that, “it is a sign of the times that ‘more Pennsylvania high school students are taking environmental education classes than physics’” (The Global Ecology, 100). He continues by stating that a group of 17 year olds who were asked to pick one of the biggest problems in our country overwhelmingly chose the environment, while only a very small portion of adult participants agreed (The Global Ecology, 100). The only explanation for this statistics is education. More emphasis has been placed in convincing the modern generation of students that global warming is an issue than there was in past generations. Indeed, Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth—The Crisis of Global Warming has been shown in several classroom settings around the country, with no alternative to Gore’s claims presented or discussed. As with any controversy, both sides of the topic must be carefully examined before any real judgment can be made regarding this issue. It is obvious that one side of this issue is being favored. So, one may ask, if the other side isn’t being heard, then what are they saying?
One thing that must be taken into consideration on both sides of the global warming debate is that climatology is a very new and developing science. Dr Jim Renwick, a researcher in this field, suggests that, “Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well…The weather is not predictable beyond a week or two” (Renwick qtd in Bellamy). Almost every individual familiar with a weather station can relate to this quote. Nobody counts on the weatherman to be one hundred percent accurate—yet, they are willing to accept the prediction that the globe will warm steadily over years, and even decades, without question. In reality, most weather prediction is done on computer models, which are not necessarily accurate—and advocates of global warming are not strangers to such models. John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, admits that, “No model is perfect because the system is incredibly complex” (Christy).
Scientists who disagree that global warming is manmade take a different approach—instead of looking toward the unpredictable future, they refer to the past for guidance. Unlike the future, the past deals in facts that have already been proven and will never change. It may shock Americans to hear that nearly forty years ago, in the 1970s, environmentalists were completely convinced that the globe was cooling. One headline from the L.A. Times boldly declared, “No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere,” while Time magazine in 1974 asked, “Another Ice Age?” (Beck). The media is certainly singing a different tune now.
The simplest explanation for their sudden change in tone is that the globe really was getting cooler then, and it really is getting hotter now. However, according to Professor Bellamy, this is completely natural. He suggests, “The last peak temperatures were around 1940 and 1998, with troughs of low temperature around 1910 and 1970…how can a sixty-year cycle of changing temperature give any credibility to claims that carbon dioxide is causing an inexorable march towards a climate Armageddon?” (Bellamy).
He is not the only scientist who believes that changes in climate are dependant more on complex solar patterns and natural cycles than on CO2 emissions. John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, suggests, “…natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend” (Coleman).
In fact, there has even been evidence discovered that suggests that the globe must warm in order to cool again, and vice versa—furthering belief in the natural cycles that dictate the earth’s warming and cooling. These natural patterns are crucial to maintaining the planet’s overall equilibrium. According to John Baden and Tim O’Brien, “A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth’s albedo [the amount of light reflected back into space] and cool the planet” (Baden and O’Brien).
Some scientists who believe in man-made global warming agree that these natural cycles exist, and humans are throwing them out of balance by releasing too many greenhouse gasses. In response to this, Professor Christy addresses CO2, the most controversial greenhouse gas, by stating, “The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is increasing in the atmosphere due primarily to the combustion of fossil fuels. It is our great fortune (because we produce so much of it) that CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food” (Christy). Another study confirms this proposition, stating, “We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we are now blessed.” This study goes as far as to claim that continuing to release CO2 into the atmosphere is one approach to combating poverty in third-world countries because increased fertility will allow them to grow and produce more food (Soon, Robinson and Robinson). The C02 increase can be viewed as more of a blessing than a curse because it will allow plants and animals (including humans) to thrive and prosper. Additionally, CO2 is not physically harmful to human beings, but a basic part of their anatomy. Every time someone exhales, they exhale carbon dioxide.
Is the globe actually warming because of the release of this greenhouse gas? David Bellamy, who proposed that the temperature increases and decreases in sixty-year increments, declares, “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen…yet the temperature has gone up and down in a cyclical manner. How can this be explained unless there are other factors in control overriding the effect of this greenhouse gas?” (Bellamy). Carbon dioxide has been around in the atmosphere since at least 400 B.C. when blacksmiths first started burning coal, and the temperature has continued to increase and decrease (The Global Economy). If carbon dioxide were indeed causing global warming, the temperature should have steadily increased since that time.
It should also be noted, when discussing carbon dioxide, that it only makes up a very small portion of the atmospheric greenhouse gasses. In fact, it contributes to less than .04 percent. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is surprisingly water vapor (The Global Economy). However, this has always been the case, and is part of another natural phenomenon—the water cycle.
A study by Richard Lindzen showed that even if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was to double, which is highly improbable, the temperature of the globe would likely only increase by a couple of degrees Fahrenheit (Lindzen). It was suggested in one article that human activity might have some effect on the planet, but that “…research also indicates that human influence on the climate system is deeply woven into the fabric of climate variability…” (Britannica). This means that even if humans do have an impact on the globe, there is overwhelming evidence showing that the globe adjusts itself to such changes, and may not be quite as fragile as many think.
While CO2 is the most commonly discussed greenhouse gas, there are several more that some scientists perceive to be even more threatening. One such gas is chlorofluorocarbon, which has already been completely eliminated from man-made substances by environmentalists, and is currently declining in the atmosphere. Another gas, nitrous oxide, is almost completely created from a natural process involving bacterial removal of nitrogen from soil. Therefore, human influence on the release of this gas is minimal, and has always been, as is the case with many such gasses.
The last semi-controversial gas is called methane. While human activity does contribute somewhat to the release of this gas, this gas is released primarily from natural sources—in this case, it is livestock. Cows are known to be one of the primary produces of methane—and while it has been debated that humans should strive to change the eating habits of their livestock, and therefore decrease the amount of methane released into the atmosphere, this course of action is extremely improbable—indeed, almost laughable considering the amount of animals that are not domestic and would be extremely difficult to control. However, methane is a gas that only has an atmospheric lifetime of twelve years, while other gasses, such as carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, stay in the atmosphere for a much longer time (The Global Economy). This means that methane is much less likely to become a problem, because even if the amount released increases substantially, it will be decreasing at a much quicker rate than other atmospheric gasses. Also, methane has been being emitted into the atmosphere for a very long time—in fact, as long as people and animals have existed. Therefore, it should not be of great concern to people, because it is naturally occurring and there is little that can be done to control its output.
Many environmentalists and scientists have prophesied that because of these greenhouse gasses and the alleged global warming, many environmental disasters are going to occur with increased magnitude. One such disaster is the melting of world glaciers. A study done by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine suggests that this is also a natural occurrence, rather than a cause for concern. It states that, “The most recent part of this warming period is reflected by shortening of world glaciers…Glaciers regularly lengthen and shorten in delayed correlation with cooling and warming trends.” Also, this article suggests that glacier shortening is not substantial enough to worry about—when icecaps do become shorter it is only by a tiny fraction of a meter, which is hardly enough to cause mass floods worldwide. This article also shows that glacier length changes are independent of the release of carbon dioxide (Soon, Robinson, and Robinson). Evidence also suggests that only a few glaciers in the Northern Hemisphere are currently shortening, while the Antarctic ice caps are currently as large as they have ever been (Peden). It can be concluded that there is currently something of a balance in glacier length, because as some are getting shorter, others seem to be getting longer.
Another idea associated with the melting of the polar icecaps is also not necessarily legitimate—a picture of polar bears stranded in the middle of the ocean on a small chunk of ice, awaiting their doom. Al Gore used this photo to pull at the heartstrings of his empathetic audience, proclaiming that polar bears are becoming endangered because their homes, the allegedly melting icecaps, are becoming destroyed. According to James A. Peden, polar bears can swim up to 100 miles, and the photographer of this particular photo, when asked about it, claimed that the polar bears were not very far off of the shore, and seemed to be in no immediate danger (Peden). However, the media, and many American citizens, took Al Gore’s remark without question, and now believe polar bears to be an endangered species. This again sheds light on the manipulation and limited view that the media is portraying. This photo, taken completely out of context, has caused extreme amounts of controversy throughout the world.
Environmentalists have also predicted an increase in hurricanes, due primarily to global warming. However, the legitimacy of this argument is thrown into question by the study in Oregon. Graphs suggest that the number of hurricanes over the past century have remained fairly steady in both quantity and magnitude (Soon, Robinson, and Robinson). Since the global warming trend is suggested to have begun shortly after the little ice age in the 1970s, this claim would only stand true of hurricanes were currently becoming more frequent and violent.
To many, it would seem as though global warming is only an issue because humans are making into one. The environmental ‘threats’ previously stated are only several on a very long list. It is true that the media and the government have done little to calm public fear on the topic—but it is equally evident that this issue should not remain one-sided. Many valuable and credible authors have published evidence suggesting that global warming is not manmade, and the alleged ‘crisis’ that may result from it is far from the truth. Whether or not their voices will finally be heard is debatable—it is dependant on the assumption that educated individuals will take the time to question what they have been continuously told, and to think for themselves. Not everyone will agree regarding this issue—but everyone should strive to be informed.
Works Cited
Baden, John and, O'Brein, Tim. "The global warming myth and its selfish defenders." 23
Mar 1994. Foundation for Research on Free Economics and the Enviornment. 6 Mar 2008
Beck, Glenn. "Exposed: The Climate of Fear." 02 May 2007. 6 Mar 2008
Bellamy, David. "The Global Warming Myth." 13 Aug 2007. 6 Mar 2008
Christy, John. "Written Testimony of John R. Christy." 17 May 2000. 6 Mar 2008
Coleman, John. "Comments about Global Warming." 6 Mar 2008
“global warming.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.
24 Feb. 2008
Goodman, Ellen. "No Change in Political Climate." The Boston Globe 09 Feb 2007 05
Mar 2008
Lindzen, Richard. "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific
Consensus." 1992. CATO Institute. 6 Mar 2008
Peden, James. "The Great Global Warming Hoax?." The Middlebury Community
Network. 6 Mar 2008
Robinson, Arthur and Robinson, Noah. "Global Warming Is 300-Year-Old." The Wall
Street Journal (2000):
Soon, Wille, Robinson, Arthur and Robinson, Noah. "Environmental Effects of Increased
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
12(2007): 79-90.
The Global Ecology. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company, 1999.
No comments:
Post a Comment