Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Hons 101: The Environment
To begin our deliberation re: the environment, which will lead to the Honors Program Issues for the 21st Century Forum (Tuesday, December 4, 2007, 7-830p, UC 201-202), please consider the "A Difference of Opinion" at pp. 51-52 of Beyond Feelings. (1) Read the passage re: Is the threat of global warming real or imaginary? (2) Use the Rice Library and/or the Internet and find what knowledgeable people have said about the issue. For the purpose of this assignment it will be difficult to cover the entire range of views; identify at least two knowledgeable sources with differing views. (3) Assess the strengths and weaknesses of each. (4) Based on this critical assessment, develop your own view and explanation as to why that view is reasonable. (5) Post your assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of others' views and explanation of your view as a comment. Be reminded of the basic activities of critical thinking: investigation, interpretation, and judgment. We start the critical thinking process with inquiry -- what knowledge would we need in order to reach an informed opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I believe that the threat of global warming has become too sensationalized. Many politicians have global warming as a pet issue. Skepticism on the subject sometimes met with great resistance from supporters of "green" policies. I recall an article in Discover magazine in which an Astronomer met severe criticism and even harassment for suggesting that increased solar activity was both interfering with cloud formation and increasing heat output. I believe this dogmatic belief in humans being the main contributor of global warming is not condusive to rational discussion.
It has been proven that there have been signs of worldwide climate changes. The debatable fact, however, is the cause of the changes. The National Geographical News (news.nationalgeographic.com) gives several facts on climate changes but it doesn’t give concrete proof to what causes these changes. Yes the climate is changing but can we be sure it is due to an increase in carbon dioxide? There are chemical equations that could prove this theory true but that doesn’t not mean that it is. A chemical equation can be written for almost anything it does not mean that it will naturally occur. On the other hand the critics have not proven it untrue either. An article by Wm. Robert Johnston at www.johnstonsarchive.net lists some of the points the critics make. One of the major points is that a majority of the temperature change occurred before it should have if the reason was carbon dioxide. Another point they make is that temperature change is better correlated with solar activity. Solar magnetic flux correlates with the change in the temperature that has occurred since 1880 when it is believed the process of global warming began. It cannot be proved that mankind is the one responsible for the increase of temperature. After reviewing these facts from both sides I would say that I would not be able to make a decision one way or the other. Neither one are concrete in their warrants for their opinions. Just because it cannot be disproved does not mean it is true and just because it cannot be proved does not mean it is false, more information is needed in both cases.
2. Cheney is an advocate for economic growth, and often disergards the environment as a whole.
Dr. Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace, is firmly environmentalist.
3. Economic growth could further bring cheaper, better life to us through new technology, more jobs, and other benefits.
On the other hand, such technology and luxuries wouldn't matter if we created more problems such as ruining our ozone layer or killing one another off...
4. I believe we should walk the line when it comes to Economic versus Environmental interests. I am mostly economical, however. Raping the earth is a bit much, but if we can use a technique that is a lot cleaner at a little greater price, we should. It seems as if leaning too far in one direction or the would would have very negative consequences on us, or future generations.
-Jordan Michael Holl
In May 2006, the documentary film about global warming, An Inconvenient Truth, starring Al Gore was released. It was presented as a vehicle to warn the public about the dangers posed by climate change in the 21st century. The film was a major success. Many climatologists, Earth scientists and environmental activists support Gore's film, claiming that it helps raise public awareness about global warming. In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore issues warnings about the physical changes that will occur as a result of human-induced climate change. Many scientists critical of the film say that Gore does a poor job presenting the science of global warming. One weakness of this presentation of global warming is that Gore--who does not have formal scientific training--makes false claims about future warming and fails to acknowledge some of flaws of the global warming theory. Many critics admit that global warming is one of the most important issues of our time, yet they claim that Gore presents a skewed version of global warming. Bjorn Lomborg, a political scientist explains, “Global climate change is a real and serious problem, but the cacophony of screaming does not help." Gore does admit that there are some inaccuracies in his film, while he holds on to the fact that An Inconvenient Truth generally explains the scientific consensus on global warming. "The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger," he wrote in defense of his film. "I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand."
On the opposing side of the argument, critics seem to be ignoring serious research supporting the existence of global climate change. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the U.N., released a major report discussing the physical impact that global warming will have the planet. The IPCC report, which was researched, written and reviewed by thousands of scientists, warns that elevated greenhouse gas levels in Earth's atmosphere are already causing droughts, flooding, heat waves, polar ice melting and rising sea levels. In April, the Supreme Court rules in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the U.S. government could impose federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions from cars.
In response to this research, I find myself concerned about global climate change, but I also understand the doubtful point of view. I realize the existence of increasing levels of greenhouse gases and their impact, but causing mass chaos on our globe is not necessary. We should further research efficient ways to deal with the crisis, rather than arguing the degree of its existence. We should work on our technological advances to cope with the issue and focus our efforts in this direction, rather than trying to defend its future disastrous effects.
I recently viewed Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, in my AP biology class in high school. This film was presented to our class so we could discuss global warming and the effects we thought it would have on our future. The film was supposed to have discussed the truths and myths about global warming and threat on society. Gore supposedly re-set his life plan to prevent global warming. Watching this film, our class discussed the information presented. We agreed on some of the concepts, and felt that some of the issues and problems were indeed valid. We also questioned whether the material presented was a factor contributing to global warming, or if it was just a fact that had relatively little ties. We also questioned the material presented because Al Gore was the one who presented the information. He is not a researcher or scientist, and some of the claims he makes he even admits are faulty.
The whole global warming controversy has been ongoing, with many conflicting views on the subject. Jim Hansen, director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said this in an online interview: "The argument about whether there is global warming is over. It is now clear that, for thirty years, we have been in a strong global warming trend at a rate of about 0.2 Celsius per decade for the past 30 years, [meaning] there has been 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) global warming in the past 30 years. The Earth is now at its warmest level in the period of instrumental data, that is, since the late 1800s."
I also found a quote from a Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an editorial for a well-published newspaper: "These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."
However, I also found opposing scientists who believe that global warming is not real and is just a natural process the earth takes. They believe that the earth is not at risk, the planet is cooling off, and that most of the people do not fully understand the measurements of what would be considered global warming. "These people, believe that the trend is a false alarm and that it is not a sign of a fore coming global disaster."
In response to the research I have done, I would say that society should be concerned about global climate change, and scientists should continue to conduct more research on "global warming." I think we need to use our technologiccal advances to concrete the evidence before issuing a mass panic around the globe. We should focus on how we would deal with a natural disaster, if in fact it is a real concept that could potentially threaten the world.
Paul Epstein feels that the explanation for global warming is ultimately found with fossil fuels and forests, and the costs of global warming are quickly becoming unmanageable. He is in favor of making a clean energy transition that could become the “engine of economic growth” for this century. David Archer, on the other hand, believes that scientists have fulfilled their duties in researching global warming and believes that it is now “time to confront the reality of human-induced change.”
Obviously, Epstein’s ideas, if successful, could have our country reaping benefits. Hopefully, it would cut down on the effects of global warming. However, the weakness would be trying to find alternate methods for numerous things. This could take time and lots of money. Archer’s plan would benefit in the fact that we would not be trying to fix something that might prove impossible. The downside to his notion, however, is that global warming could increase if something is not done.
I think that some type of approach that somewhat combined the two opinions would be good. For example, we must first and foremost admit that we cannot undo the damage that has already been done. However, we can prevent more damage from being done. By taking realistic approaches to find a clean energy alternative, we could be doing ourselves a huge favor.
The website http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html contains many views of various people on the issue of global warming.
Those that believe global warming is happening argue that "we have been in a strong global warming trend at a rate of about 0.2 Celsius per decade for the past 30 years" (Jim Hansen). They also say that humans are to blame because of the burning of fossil fuels. They say there is also and increase in the CO2 level in the atmosphere contributing to global warming.
I do not find this view very justifiable. Just because there is a trend over the last 30 years doesn't mean that it will continue. It may just be a phase. They don't know for certain what is causing the increase in atmospheric temperature.
The other view is that global warming is a myth and it isn't happening. William Gray comments that "this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced...If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."
I believe this theory to be more acceptable with greater reasoning. Gray has a good point in that correlation does not mean causation.
I don't think global warming is a threat. The reasoning behind it is more believeable to me. There is no proof I found that global warming is a for sure thing, so I have no reason to believe it.
While the fact that the global climate patterns have changed is not disputed,the reason for these changes are. Some, like Erin Aigner, Jonathan Corum, Vu Nguyen of the New York Times believe that the recent increase in temperatures are due to the trapping of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, a phenomenon known as global warming. This view explains the rapid increases in temperature since the 1970s, which has been three times the average of the rest of the 20th century. This view makes sense because our production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses has increased heavily, especially with the widespread use of automobiles.
Others, such as Tom Bethel of the magazine The American Specator believe that global warming is just an overhyped natural fluctation in the global climate patterns. This view explains the current increase in global temperatures as a natural phenomenon. After all,there was a global warming period from 1910 to 1940, followed by a cooling period from 1940 to 1975. This view makes sense because of the history of the climate patterns across the globe. If the climate has been heating and cooling for the past century, then why would this heating pattern be anything to worry about?
I believe that global warming is just another natural trend in the global climate pattern. After all, until 1970, environmentalists were concerned with environmental cooling. This shows that environmentalists have a track record of overanalyzing these climate trends. I also believe that this increase in temperature is natural because it has happened before. The temperature has increased over a period of time, and then it went through a period of cooling. I believe that the current increase in global temperatures is just the next phase cycle of global climate changes.
On the topic of global warming there are two stark sides each with their own research and facts to support their opinions. Some believe the topic is simply an issue of fanatical scientists giving too much attention to the temperature increase. Opponents of the global warming theory claim things, such as the warming of the Earth’s temperature, are simply a natural trend that humans need not worry about. They put forth information denying all of the research conducted by who believe global warming is not simply a natural trend. This side says the increase in greenhouse gases places no direct threat on the Earth. An ardent supporter of this view, Christopher Monckton, of the Telegram.UK, denies all the supporting facts proving the theory of global warming, giving reasons such as post-colonial de-forestation or a simple trend of the Earth. Supporters of this side see global warming as an issue that does not need to be handled at this time and feel global warming is not human kind's responsibility to deal with it. The Earth will simply resolve its own problems.
On the other side of the issue lay those who feel global warming is a dire, critical issue requiring immediate action. I, personally, fall into this category and truly find it amazing that people remain to believe any differently. Scientific data for millions of sources show that the Earth is warming up, weather patterns are changing, and the severity of storms is increasing. Each of these effects is consequences of an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Of course, this increase is caused by the overuse of fossil fuels by humans and other gluttonous human actions such as deforestation, over farming, and an overall neglect of the environment. This increase in global temperature cannot be explained as simply natural cooling and warming trends of the Earth because never before has the Earth experienced such a large change. Humans have affected the planet yet we still want to blow it off and act as if nothing is happening. It is known that the major effects of global warming have not yet began, but who wants to wait for things like increases in sea level due to melting of ice caps or devastating storms caused by the change in ocean temperature? Proponents of this side believe steps need to be taken now to stop the crisis before the effects are irreversible.
The fact that climate changes are occurring is not what is up for dispute. What is highly debated is the cause of these changes. Over the years, there have been records of an increase in temperature. According to www.geocities.com, the earth is heating up at approximately half a degree Celsius a year since 1990. There have also been reports of an increase in green house gases especially carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming. Supporters of global warming state that much of this increase is due to the overpopulation of the earth and man's increase use of fossil fuels and deforestation (www.geocities.com). Critics, however, state that man-made carbon dioxide is not the cause rather natural occurring is. They also state that this could be a natural trend and those supporters of global warming make to much out of information especially since many early temperature reading could only be obtained indirectly through the use of tree rings, bore holes, ice caps, and the skeletons marine organisms. (www.spectator.org). In fact, the "Hockey Stick" which depicts the trends of temperature over several hundred years is believed to be very misleading due to the fact that for the fist 900 years the temperature is shown as relatively stable and then the last hundred years there is a an abrupt increase in temperature (www.spectator.org). This caused serious debate because it is known that temperatures were not as unchanging as the chart implied specifically relating to the 14th and 15th century (www.spectator.org). Another thing to take into consideration is that the sun’s energy fluctuations could be held responsible for the increase in temperature. Critics of global warming also emphasize the fact that prior to 1980 environmentalists were concerned with global cooling and what a grave concern it was. Due to this, critics believe that supporters of global warming simply make too much of trends that the causes of which can not be directly proven (www.spectator.org). If what supporters of global warming believe to be happening is actually occurring, then the environment could be in grave danger. However, if environmentalists are jumping the gun and making too much of the trends presented then the issue of global warming is not nearly as serious as it is portrayed. It could simply be a natural part of the aging of the earth. I do not believe that either view is proven conclusively and, thus, I do not believe that I can make a decision on which one is the correct one. Both sides present good arguments but at this point in time I do not believe that I can make a decision conclusively on which side I support. I do find myself more concerned with the environment but I also understand that many of the grave concerns being presented are debatable and not conclusively reliable.
*Climate Action Network (http://www.climatenetwork.org/) -Groups trying to reduce the amount of impact that the humans have on the climate. They are trying to prevent the climate change by taking action. *National Resource Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/) - The site states that global warming is a very real issue that is affecting not just the US, but the world. They discussed the severeness of wildfires and floods as support for their stand on global warming. They also are in support of laws to control emissions. *US EPA (epa.gov/climatechange/) - States that greenhouse gas emissions are rising at an alarming rate. The health of people may be in danger because of the climate change. *Global Warming (global warming.org) -States that some people are blowing the issue of global warming and climate change out of proportion and that people need to calm down and look at the facts presented to them without creating their own or using global warming as an excuse for average things.
I think that the National Resource Defense Council has many more strengths then the others. It describes in much more detail the causes, effects, and what we can do to prevent it. It has a part of the site called “The Basics” and it would be very helpful for someone who wasn't familiar with the concept of global warming. The site is much more persuasive then the others. The Global Warming site also discusses the “causes” of global warming, but gives other explainable reasons for them. The explanations that they give are also believable, but less commonly found in my research. The climate Action Network site seems to focus mainly on what people can do to prevent global warming, there is less information about the causes and support that global warming is going to cause other problems.
I believe that the threat of global warming is a real issue that needs to be addressed. Other explanations for the various occurrences do not seem believable. From severe floods to severe droughts, one explanation that fits all categories is global warming. I would support any legislation that would limit the pollution of the air or help make our environment a safer place. The United States is the largest source of pollution and I think it's time that we took control of that. We have ignored our environment and resources for to long. These things are very important for our future. I'm glad that car companies are looking into alternative ways of fueling cars. Even if we cannot heal the damage that has been done so far, there is still hope of preventing even more damage from being done. While I disagree with my classmates who think that global warming is imaginary, I do see how they can think that. There is support for their beliefs just as there is support for mine.
Global warming is obviously a hotly disputed subject with many political and activist groups supporting both sides of the issue. The media has spent lots of airtime drumming up sensational stories about the effects about global warming and greenhouse gasses.
Many people support the idea that global warming is an immediate danger that must be addressed now, lest we irreparably damage the environment. Possibly the most well known supporter of the theory is former Vice President Al Gore with the movie "An Inconvenient Truth," which recently won him the Nobel Peace Prize. In his film he, and his supporters, try to push people to become more aware of the dangers of global warming. They contend that in the near future reactions to increases in the earths temperature will result catastrophic changes in the environment, sea levels, storm cycles, and result in the death or displacement of millions of people.
Opponents of this view are quick to point out that Gore's movie grossly misrepresents the scientific evidence on 9 of the movies 32 points. They also point out that there is very little proven scientific evidence in support of or against global warming being a major threat. Our knowledge of the planets workings and out effect on it is not enough to accurately predict if global warming is a threat. The planet goes through natural warming and cooling periods and we cannot predict how we are affecting that trend.
The EPA website does a good job of representing the argument because it outlines what we know, what is likely and what is not certain about the global warming debate.
I am of the opinion that at this point we simply do not know enough to truly form an informed opinion. There is not enough definite evident evidence to support either case. We know that over the las 100 years the world has increased on average, but the amount of that increase is hotly debated; I have seen reports ranging from half a degree up to 6 degrees. Also we cannot accurately determine what the normal changes for the earth are, we can only determine trends that occur over hundreds of years.
I do believe that global warming is an issue and we should of course strive to lessen our impact on the environment as a general rule, not because I believe that global warming is an imminent danger. I think the fact that increases in fuel efficiencies and alternative energy sources will come more from the direct benefits they provide to people will push them to adopt them far more than the abstract idea of global warming.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Earth’s temperatures were relatively stable from 1880 to 1910. They rose until about 1945, cooled until about 1975, and have risen steadily to present day. The National Research Council says that the average surface temperature has warmed one degree Fahrenheit during the last century. Many scientists and observers attribute this temperature rise to global warming.
Some scientists believe that global warming is an imaginary threat. They dismiss the current warming trend as a result of natural variability in which a planet goes through natural phases of warming and cooling. Says Richard Lindzen, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “When we saw cooling from 1940 to 1970, we were proclaiming global cooling. Since then, there's been a few tenths of global warming, so we're proclaiming global warming.” People who support this claim believe that there is not sufficient evidence to support the idea that global warming is causing the increase in Earth’s temperature.
However, many scientists have reason to believe that global warming is causing the current increase in temperature. It has been shown through natural records such as tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs that global surface temperature has varied over the past 1000 years; however, at no time were they warmer or did they rise more quickly than during the latter half of the 20th century. “For the last 30 years, there's no way there's anything natural that can explain it,” said Stephen Schneider, a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University. According to scientists who support his view, only three things are capable of altering global temperatures over such a short period: changes in the sun’s activity, volcanic eruptions, and human emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. Studies have shown that the average amount of energy from the sun has remained constant or increased only slightly in the 20th century. Also, if warming were caused by a more active sun, scientists would observe warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere rather than a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere and a cooling in the upper atmosphere as they are seeing now. Major volcanic eruptions actually temporarily cooled temperatures by pumping reflective gases into the atmosphere so they cannot possibly be the cause. Laboratory experiments have shown that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb and re-radiate infrared energy, and satellite observations have shown that these gases have the same heat-trapping effect in the atmosphere. In addition, the dramatic rate of increase in greenhouse gases matches the rate of temperature increase in the latter half of the 20th century. Finally, scientists have been unable to produce the recent global warming trend through models without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
Global warming is definitely a cause for concern. In February 2007 the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected that if carbon dioxide levels doubled relative to pre-industrial levels, temperatures could rise between 3.6 to 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. According to aforementioned Schneider, the lower end of the range could cause more intense hurricanes, droughts, wildfires and flooding, while the higher end could lead to “catastrophes commonly associated with the visions of Hollywood filmmakers.”
I believe there is sufficient evidence to support global warming with near certainty and that we need to work to combat the problem before it is too late.
Sources:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarmingQandA
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/07/11/globalwarming.overview/index.html?eref=rss_latest
Based on what I have read, scientists have basically reached a consensus that climate change is occuring, and the real point of debate is whether or not changes are a result of human activity. I found it interesting that some articles claim that people who do not believe global warming is a problem are threatened with the removal of funding if they make these views public. However, I also came across articles claiming that these people receive more press than they deserve. According to an article about journalistic bias in the case of global warming, (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978) often published stories on the global warming controversy cite two researches with opposing views in an attempt to provide both sides of the story. According to the article, this can be a problem because it makes it look like those two sides are equally supported when in fact, as with the case in favor of global warming, one side is supported by a considerable majority. I think that global warming is a real issue and I believe increased levels of carbon dioxide are contributing to changes in our climate. Natural factors are almost definitely at work as well, but much research has suggested that human activity is speeding up the process. It may seem that the consequences of global warming are being blown out of proportion when some alarmists speak on the topic, but to completely write off something that could cause irreversible damage to our planet is shortsighted. Since it appears that consensus cannot be reached either way as to human impact on global warming, I believe it is better to err on the side of caution and consider global warming an issue that we can and should do something about.
As a preface, if you do read any of my blog, please read my last paragraph.
I’d like to take a different approach on the issue of global warming. It is clear, as with any major issue, there are two distinct sides. Instead of concentrating on which side is right or wrong, I’d like to take a look at the science behind the evidence. One of the most cited sources that global warming is a real issue that humans are causing and that needs to be addressed is the report of the IPCC. The report is based off of the combination of several mathematical models ranging from the surface temperature of Earth to the amount of polar ice. The opposing side states that there is no definite way to tell that humans are causing global warming. True. However, all scientific statements are based off of theories that are supported by quantitative evidence. In response to those Rush and other individuals who disregard global warming as a “normal cycle, the scientists that developed this hypothesis are aware of this fact. However, mathematically, something led them to believe that this warming of the Earth is different, mainly the increased rate at which it was happening. This IS scientific investigation: looking at anomalies and trying to answer them.
What makes the issue of global warming different and grabs the attention of scientists around the world is the fact that, unlike other hypothesizes, this one can’t be tested. We cannot simply say to ourselves in 50 years when, as scientists are currently predicting, there will be no ice at the poles or super-storms destroy cities that used to never be threatened that oops… we were wrong. Humans are causing global warming. Let’s go back and fix it. Oh, it’s too late? The push for controlling global warming is so strong, even though it hasn’t definitively been proven that humans are causing it, because it is something that leaves no room for mistakes.
In conclusion, I’d like to present a, what I believe to be, a very interesting outlook on global warming. I believe that my fellow pre-med students familiar with the cycle of biological systems will agree. The Earth itself is a gigantic biological system. Like all systems, it has an emergency switch to keep it from “over heating” (no pun intended). For example, a certain population of organisms will, at first, increase at an exponential rate until it is beyond the environment’s carrying capacity. Then, from lack of food, space, and other vital nutrients, mass destitution and large scale death result until the species returns to the environments carrying capacity. The standard “S” shaped curve in a sense. A similar situation exists with between the Earth and humans. In terms of the Earth, I have no fear that if the issue of global warming continues to be ignored a similar situation of disaster, like the one described above, will result. In essence, the Earth will protect itself from ultimate death. Humans may no longer be around, but eventually the Earth will return to its normal temperature equilibrium.
There are many differing opinions on the threat of global warming. Some say it will be the end of the world if we do not change now and others believe that it is a hoax. These differing opinions can be seen in two different articles, one by George F. Will and the other by Bob Holmes.
Will believes that global warming can help the Earth more than it hurts it. For example, he states that global warming is blamed for 35,000 deaths in Europe's August 2003 heat wave, but the winter in Europe kills seven times more people then the heat does. Moderate worldwide warming will actually save lives. He also explains that by 2100 the oceans levels will increase by a foot. This raising of the ocean will not lead to a planetary crisis, but local problems. Also, numerous people have moved closer to the ocean and that explains the problem of hurricanes. Global warming has not created more hurricanes over the past years. Hurricanes have not become more abundant, more people and houses have been moved near the sea, which leads to more damage. Another argument that Will downplays is the idea that malaria will increase Vermont. He believes that spending more time and money on mosquito nets and less on changing the world’s climate is needed.
Will gives a lot of examples in his article over global warming. He provides a very interesting point of view on this subject that I have never though about. He makes a very good argument with plenty of facts, details and examples, but I would like to know what makes George F. Will an expert in this subject? If George F. Will was someone of importance on this subject I would be forced to rethink my position on global warming.
Bob Holmes argues that greenhouse gas emissions have boosted the moisture content of the atmosphere and this adds to evidence of global warming. Some say that the only effect of greenhouse gases is an increase in global temperature. Holmes says that climatologists would have to show that related aspects of the climate like wind and moisture are also being affected by global warming in order to argue that it is a major problem. Climate scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California found that the moisture in the air has increased since 1988 by using satellites. Also, computer simulations matched to the satellite data have shown that increased moisture in the air is related to the warming temperatures in the atmosphere. This increased moisture fuels hurricanes.
Bob Holmes has a better argument, because his article contains scientific studies done by people trained in the field of climatology. He explains what experts have discovered in the course of their studies over global warming and what it means to us. I believe that global warming is an issue we need to worry about and Holmes provides me with more facts and examples on why I chose this view.
Sources:
http://web.ebscohost.com.lib-proxy.usi.edu/ehost/detail?vid=8&hid=7&sid=0b7f09d7-9e62-4bde-8ebc-691645ca99aa%40sessionmgr9
http://web.ebscohost.com.lib-proxy.usi.edu/ehost/detail?vid=12&hid=6&sid=eb5c7db2-e5d7-4643-a8fe-20f5c9093a91%40sessionmgr7
The ideas and consequences of global warming are highly debated. While some are quick to dismiss the subject as unimportant, others feel that global warming is a real threat that should be treated seriously. As temperatures cause climates to rise, global warming becomes a very controversial topic.
Dr. S. Fred Singer is a skeptic of the global warming theory. He suggests that climate changes are common. Over time, minor climate fluctuations have been measured. He believes that predictions of global warming are not reliable because of inaccurate models. According to Singer, too many variables prevent a model without gaps in knowledge to exist. Singer suggests that warming, if it happens at all, will not be consequential.
Tom M.L. Wigley is a firm believer that global warming is happening, and humans are a major cause. He acknowledges that the warming we are experiencing is accelerated compared to past numbers. Wigley suggests that human activity, natural external factors, and factors outside the climate system are responsible for greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming. He considers climate models to be credible sources in order to prove his case. He believes that our sensitive climate is very vulnerable to the effects of global warming.
I believe global warming is a real occurence. Although it is impossible to perfectly predict future climate trends, models are still effective. It would be wrong to dismiss them because of their imperfections. It would also not be wise to look strictly to the past to confront climate issues. Based on past patterns, some climate fluctuation has occured globally. However, the increase has been accelerated recently. It is not exactly like what we have seen before. Whether global warming is fully accepted or not, it is best to keep investigating the topic. No argument is without flaw, and we need to keep learning about global warming. We should keep a watchful eye on climate changes in order to adjust what we know about global warming.
-Stephen Saligram
Source: www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate
Being a rather dedicated environmentalist, I've been a staunch believer in the issue of global warming as a result of increased carbon emissions for as long as I have had an interest in the issue. However, actually researching the opposing opinion has lead me to respect, and even perhaps buy into certain aspects of their argument.
According to http://www.oism.org/pproject, the earth has been a part of a steady warming trend since about 1800. It also points out that the glaciers have been melting at a steady rate since this time, and this rate has not been affected by the onset of increased hydrocarbon use which began in 1940. (NASA however, disputes this, claiming that the artic ice cap has melted by more than 40% since 1960.)
Despite this evidence, it is hard to ignore the significant climate changes that have begun to accelerate over the past 30 years, which correlates with the increased hydrocarbon usage. According to http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp, every year from 1998-2006 ranks among the 25 hottest years on record in United States history. Not to mention the intensifying of weather extremes, such as hurricanes and droughts.
I am inclined to continue believing that human carbon emissions are impacting the global climate conditions;however, after looking into the opposition, I am no longer convinced that humans bear all of the responsibility for the current warming trend.
I think the most prominent person in the global warming debate is Al Gore. He has used his political status to spread awareness. He say s that the signs are everywhere and I agree. At http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/ one can see all of the information that he has gathered. http://www.climatehotmap.org/namerica.html is a website dedicated to the warning signs of global warming and they are very prevalent all over the world. This site also helps prove the role that increased carbon dioxide emissions help bring forth global warming. If one is to look at the map and where the most warning signs are found, these are areas with more population and industry.
I think that economic growth could indeed counteract global warming. With greater technology we can reduces our emissions and make life cleaner and cheaper for our citizens. As the years go by researchers are finder more environmentally friendly ways of doing things, like hybrid cars for example.
I am support the environment more than the economy. However, in this case I think the two go hand-in-hand. Just refer to what i wrote above. An advancing economy could help the environment as long as the technology comes with it. I think the only way our economy will advance is to have more technology so we can begin to use renewable resources, meanwhile helping the environment become better for future generations.
I watched "An Inconvenient Truth" and Al Gore made some very interesting points on a variety of issues regarding global warming, including deteriorating coastlines and the changes being so small we don't notice. One example I remember was if you were to stick a frog inside a pot of boiling water, it would jump right out. But if you put it in a pot of water in which the heat of the water was slowly increased, it wouldn't notice, even when it was dangerously hot. It'll stay in there "until we save it," he basically said. I hadn't really thought about the affect of the water temperature on animals.
However, Cooler Heads (http://www.globalwarming.org/research) has listed quite a few resources about how we cannot hope to fix global warming on our own without severely crippling the economy and other arguments, mostly against the validity of some claims made by proponents of actions to prevent global warming.
This is my outlook on the situation: if we're wrong about global warming and it isn't really happening, we still didn't waste money. We created more efficient ways to do things, more efficient cars, more efficient facotries, etc. If we're wrong about global warming and it ISN'T real and we don't do anything about it, then we are screwed, because we won't HAVE an earth on which to spend all the money we saved by our inaction. I was sent a video which by eerie coincidence fits my argument exactly. Here's the link: http://www.slide.com/r/MDO3X0UmtT_FDFQTC-Jt3tvS9kWghEbq
In any case, we should definitely act upon our suspicions, at least to make more efficient things, because even if you don't affect the environment, efficiency is nice.
~Crystal
Like many others, I viewed Al Gore's film last year in my current events class. I found most of what he said about global warming to be very interesting, but I was also very clueless about the topic and its effects. What he said about the warming trends and the severity of this one really caught me off guard and initially made me think that this is something that we definitely need to tackle now. However, further research led me to question my initial response. As William Robert Johnston points out in an article from April 2001, the rise in temperature started occurring in the 1940s, while carbon dioxide emissions, the blame most scientists cite for the rise in temperature, did not start rising until the 1960s. Others such as Tom Bethel, an author for The American Spectator, believe that global warming is just an exaggerated warming trend. After all, there was a warming period from around 1910 to 1940 followed by a cooling period until 1975. Could global warming not just be a more severe warming trend?
I tend to fall somewhere in between the two arguments. The evidence in favor of global warming is quite substantial, but for every piece of evidence there is most likely a reason or explanation for its happenings from a nonbeliever. I believe that it cannot be determined whether or not global warming is actually taking place because it is impossible to predict the future and the possibility of a cooling trend following. Therefore, I think that it is only responsible to take proper precautions to preserve our world for those who follow. After all, just as there is the possibility that this could be a warming trend followed by a colling trend, there also lies the possibility that the harshest effects of global warming are yet to be seen. Such natural disasters and phenomena prompted by a lazy attempt to take prevention could bring about a drastic and even detrimental change to life as we know it. It is both selfish and unfair for us to ignore the threat of global warming and expose those who succeed us on this planet to the possible calamities associated with the threat of global warming
The issue of global warming has been unfortunately politicized to such an extent that it is nearly impossible to get a fair view of the issue. Politicians and their talking heads are masquerading as climatologists on both sides of the issue and that is the biggest reason that no significant steps are being taken to address the problem. People are going to have to let go of their political motives and simply look at the facts of the issue. Mongabay.com gives data showing that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from around 275 to about 375 PPM since the beginning of the industrial revolution, which is about when humans started burning fossil fuels in significant amounts. Over that time, global temperatures have also risen. We know that the additional CO2 does increase the greenhouse effect, but we also know that from the 14th to 18th century there was a minor ice age, with global temperatures that were significantly lower than they had been in previous ages. Unfortunately, the potential implications of climate change do not allow us time to figure out exactly what is happening to the Earth, how much of the problem is caused by human activity and how much is natural cycles, etc. We know that we are affecting the climate to some extent and we must take steps to change this. [facetious] This is vital to the future of humanity. Earth is its own system, and I believe it will correct itself if we continue to throw it out of whack. We will be eliminated if needed to maintain equilibrium of Earth's cycles. [/facetious] But business and those who control the economies of nations must learn to balance their own interests with those of the species as a whole, otherwise, we're all in for trouble.
Today, there are two very different views on global warming. On one side, people believe that increased human activity is creating an increase in global temperatures. According to the National Climate Data Center of the U.S. Department of Commerce, global climate temperatures have been increasing since the late 19th century. In the last century, the average temperature of the Earth has increased by 1˚F. Also, greenhouse gases are increasing due to human activity. Since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing. It is predicted that by the end of the 21st century, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have increased by about 75-350%. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, if conditions continue as they are now global precipitation patterns and storminess will greatly increase. Today, the Arctic sea ice is 40% thinner than in 1970. Antarctica is losing as much as 36 cubic miles a year. All of these facts are presented as evidence that global warming is truly affecting the condition of the Earth.
On the other side, people argue that the Earth has gone through many climate cycles and that this new increase in temperature is merely another cycle. According to Bill Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences, the world will begin cooling in a matter of three to eight years. They also argue that the greenhouse effect has always existed and has always impacted the climate of the Earth. Therefore, human activity is not the cause of global warming. For many years, Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist, has argued that clouds and water vapor will counteract the greenhouse emissions of human activity. Skeptics actually argue that global warming may be good, because warmer temperatures equate to longer growing seasons.
I believe that global warming is a real problem, but I can see that the skeptics of global warming provide some valid arguments. However, the climate changes experienced today are very real, whether these changes are a cause of global warming or not is not important. If the skeptics of global warming are correct, time will prove them right. However, I think that there is no time to wait and see if skeptics of global warming are correct, because the reality is that the ice caps are melting, temperatures are increasing, and carbon dioxide is increasing. It is much better to take precautions than to regret not taking actions when it’s too late. Taking actions to prevent global warming will not harm anyone; it will only help improve the world we pass on to our progeny. However, if we just sit back and let “nature” take its course, as skeptics of global warming would like, what will happen if their predictions were wrong? I believe that actions need to be taken to counter the effects of global warming. We cannot just sit back and watch the destruction of our world.
Global climate change has been a controversial issue that was taken the forefront of politics and any scientific debate. Yet there are still questions to its impact and the actual source of global warming.
Al Gore presented An Inconvenient Truth hoping to educate the several thousand of citizens that did not understand global warming. Although the majority of the film was Al Gore presenting a slideshow, Gore explains in simple terms the effect of global warming on our environment. He supports his information with up to date scientific information and research. However, Al Gore, who is not a scientist or climatologist, makes claims that are not true in the film. For instance, Gore relates carbon dioxide emissions with invasive species. But the predominant cause of invasive species is from the land change and importation, not from global warming. Some critics claim that he is presenting a skewed version of global warming.
On the other hand, there was even a Senate Committee that launched a campaign to discredit An Inconvenient Truth. The article attempts to discredit an article published by the Associated Press (AP) that supported Gore’s movie. The Committee chose to mention an obscure Canadian newspaper that said that Bob Carter, scientist, said that Gore’s arguments were “so weak that they are pathetic”. Furthermore, the Committee stated that the AP was biased and questioned its methodology. The Committee says that there are “scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al Gore’s Än Inconvenient Truth.” However, it only states this without any support. Throughout the entire article, there were claims that neither had any reference to support them.
In response to these articles and global climate change, I believe politics is getting in the way of truly understanding the information of global warming. We are getting people who do not understand science to explain and defend global warming. We need a leader who knows what is going on and which solutions are possible. I am concerned that politics is getting involved with one of the most serious obstacles of my generation. There seems to be confusion on where the solution lies, however with politicians fiddling every two minutes to change their perspective and stands on global warming, there will be no progress. We need leadership and insight from an informed person. Global warming is going to progress like it or not, and I believe that we need to address the situation as an international community with a plan to save our environment.
Climate change has gone from being a scientific actuality to a political issue. Many people, including scientists and politicians, fail to arrive upon an agreement to this matter.
Naomi Oreskes, professor at the University of California, feels strongly that global warming is a considerable concern. She argues that the Earth’s climate is, in fact, heating up, and that we are to blame. She fears that if we continue to cause harm to our environment and do nothing about it, then we will face serious consequences.
On the other hand, Richard Lindzen, professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, challenges the severity of these claims. He agrees that there are three scientifically supported assertions: Global temperature has risen about one degree Fahrenheit since the late 19th century; levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and carbon dioxide will contribute to future warming. He continues to say that while these claims are true, they neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred.
While Oreskes uses extreme phraseology in some of her allegations, she is very knowledgeable on this topic, as she has specialized in economic geology and science history. She has studied the modern theory of the Earth, plate tectonics, the continental drift, and other geophysical concepts. And while Lindzen appears to take a negligent viewpoint on the matter, he, too, is well qualified in his arguments. He is an atmospheric physicist and is known for his research in dynamic meteorology. Both Oreskes and Lindzen have long debated with each other about global warming. They both have scientific evidence to strongly support their arguments, even though they are polar opposites in their beliefs.
I tend to take a somewhat neutral stance on this issue. While I believe that global warming is a very significant issue, I think that an extreme amount of effort must be imparted to combat it, and I simply do not believe that people would cooperate enough to make a sizeable difference. We have so many issues to worry about—poverty, deforestation, infectious diseases, war, nuclear and biological weapons, to name a few—it is difficult to tackle an issue like global warming, when we have so much more to worry about. I do believe, however, that if we do not take action now, we will reap great consequences in the future...
2.) Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect."
In a 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change. The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
3.) According to Fred Singer “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.”
According to the report by Naomi Oreskes, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural." However, none of the papers that she studied and summarized argued that point.
4.) Most of what was said by Oreskes went right over my head until I started plugging words into the thesaurus. Then again most scientific talk/ideas are "all greek to me." Many have duly noted that I do not get along well with science and thus avoid it at all costs. It's probably a really bad thing to admit, but I felt that it must be said.
I feel that global warming will become an even bigger problem if we do not do something to preserve the ozone that we have right now. However, that is easier said than done. People have become very dependent on the things that are suspected to cause global warming. We as a country are not going to be willing to give up fossile fuels and all of those other ozone destroying things that we think we need in order to live our everyday lives. I mean, American's are way too attached to their cars, homes, and all of those other luxuries that are very unnecessary but we feel that we need nonetheless.
~ Emily J. Huff ~
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_
of_scientists_opposing_global_
warming_consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Scientific_opinion_on_climate
The cause of the warming of the climate of earth has been a “hot” debate. The main theories surrounding global warming claim that the cause is either from the high levels of pollution produced and let into the atmosphere by humans or from natural changes in the climate that have caused the earth to heat up an cool for as long as the earth has existed. Based on the articles I have read, I believe that both reasons account for the warming climate of the earth.
No one can deny that the climate of the earth has gone through extreme periodic climate changes, such as the ice age. It can also not be denied, however, that humans have produced very high levels of greenhouse gases. The exact effect of the gases on the atmosphere is in question and is debated. The greenhouse effect very likely does contribute to the warming temperatures on earth.
The interesting thing about the arguments it seems, to me, is that it doesn’t exactly matter which argument is correct. What is important, however, is that we know that the earth’s climate is changing and that we find ways to combat these changes so that we can maintain a suitable climate for humans to inhabit the earth. Although anyone alive today will not likely have to deal with an uninhabitable earth, it is necessary to take a stand so that generations in the future will be able to enjoy a similar quality of life as we have.
If global warming is truly a consequence of natural periodic changes, then it doesn’t seem as if there is much humans can do to prevent it. If, as is more likely the case, pollution is increasing the affects of these periodic changes, then it is up to humans to work together to decrease pollution output and even to research to find ways to remove pollution that has already been released into the atmosphere.
In an article by John Stark, a professor of atmospheric sciences and director of the Joint Institution for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, Thomas Ackerman, said, "If nothing is done, mankind faces dramatic rises in sea level that would flood land now occupied by millions of people. Glaciers and snowfields that provide Western Washingtons drinking water could dwindle to near nothing in a few generations." He argued "that dubious scientific information denying global warning is being circulated by industry groups with self-serving agendas" and that some scientists are making more money by claiming global warming isn't a real problem. Don Easterbrook, WWU geology professor emeritus, insisted "that studies of ancient Greenland ice have shown that today's climate shifts are no different from shifts that occured in the past." He continued to explain that "the real answer is, we don't know, and therefore we shouldn't be fooling with it. I fully support reduction of carbon dioxide...We're already at places we haven't been before. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature."
Reading through this, it seems as if they are complete extremes of each other. Ackerman claiming we're all doomed and Easterbrook protesting that there's nothing really wrong and that we should sit tight and let Mother Nature run her course. But in argument towards Easterbrook, what would happen if we let Mother Nature run her course in people with diseases? We would have many more sick people and not such a high population. But this is also an extreme situation and, granted, one where we CAN do something. Ackerman insisted, "We don't do it all at once and we don't do it by one single thing." Because both contain truth in there arguments, I prefer to take a stance between Ackerman's everything-possible-must-be-done policy and Easterbrook's live-and-let-live stand. Global warming is an issue, on that I myself feel as the summers get hotter and the winters shorter these past several years, but whether it will cool down in the future or heat up, I am not sure there is much we can do. I agree with both men to an extent: we should do what we can for this world that we call home.
source: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/197431.html
The effect humans have on global warming has been a rapidly growing dispute for many years. Some even argue whether or not global warming exists. There have also been different opinions on the causes of global warming ranging from an accumulation of human induced carbon dioxide to environmental changes.
Timothy Ball believes that global warming doesn't exist He also states that global warming is not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide, and that it is the greatest deception in the history of science He believes that religious faith has something to do with the stance people take on global warming. He is referring to peoples’ beliefs in the bible, which states that men will be burnt with great heat. He also feels that the climate changes we are experiencing are natural and the sun is responsible for the changes in the atmosphere. This argument is okay, but he needs statistics to back it up.
The Koshland Science Museum says that global warming does exist. They contribute to the global warming problem to humans because of the destruction of wild life and such, thus raising CO2. The same number of trees and plants are no longer available to deplete the excess carbon dioxide that humans produce. Glen Westbroek states that trees release oxygen into the atmosphere and take carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The fewer trees there are, the more carbon dioxide stays in the air. When the trees are cut down, they are usually burned which releases even more carbon into the air.” Also, car exhaust produces carbon dioxide. This is also instigated by humans. Now, a lot more men and women throughout the world drive their own cars instead of walking, riding bicycles, or carpooling, than they did a few decades ago. This argument has good points. Their logic makes sense.
I am not sure if global warming does exist. In my history class a couple days ago we were shown a Life magazine from fifty seven years ago where they were talking about global warming, and how it was a big problem and the icecaps would soon be gone. However, I do believe that serious measures need to be taken to clean up our environment. Regardless of whether or not it is a true threat, we need to be environmentally conscious and take care of our planet. The amount we are polluting, wasting, and destroying is alarming, and something needs to be done.
Post a Comment