Introduction
For more than a decade the topic of global warming is included among the lists of the most discussed world problems. Indeed, judging by the number of headlines of world newspapers and media reports, it can be seen that global warming has been shifted from a scientific problem into a major public concern. The scope of this concern can be evident in the fact that the position on global warming was an issue in the US presidential election, and still an issue of dispute between the leading parties in the United States (LANGER; The Pew Research Center).
The basis of the arguments on global warming being a hoax is founded is related to the lack of credible scientific evidence, taking scientific findings out of context, disputes on the causes, and overhyping as lobbying for political and economic purposes. The global warming issue was promoted mainly on estimations and predictions. The analysis of world temperature and snow precipitation, specifically considering the winter of 2009-2010, plotting year-to-year snow precipitation, shows “no trend whatsoever through the entire history” (Michaels “A Blizzard of Global-Warming Hype”).
In that regard, this paper will address the positions supporting and opposing the phenomenon of global warming, stating that global warming is a real scientifically supported concern, which requires interventions to be managed.
A Real Threat
Analyzing the development of the views on global warming, it can be stated that the uncertainty of the early researches was replaced by a near unanimity. In that regard, credentialed researchers almost unanimously declared that “an artificially warming world is a real phenomenon posing real danger” (Easterbrook 2). A consensus among the scientific community is a real indicator of the reality of the concern. Analyzing such consensus, it can be stated that it was not a matter of years, but decades to say the least, where the earliest indication of industrial contribution to Earth’s greenhouse effect is traced to 1896, a theory which has been developed, investigated and confirmed form more than a century. Accordingly, the neutrality of 170 scientists from 25 countries cannot be argued, in terms of the consensus that they reached (Environmental Defense).
Another argument supporting the acknowledgment of global warming as a real threat can be seen in the irrefutable nature of the evidence in hand. The irrefutability, in that regard, is not concerned with evidence-based estimations and forecasts, rather than on analyses of existing phenomena. Such undisputable phenomena are related to the increase of global temperature anomalies, from -2 Co in 1880-1900 to 2 Co in 1980-2000 (Pumilio). With the rate of growth being three times faster in the last 30 years, which is coincided with the rate of industrial development in the world, the nature of such increase is not questionable. The measurable rise in air and ocean temperature, registered through the last century, is a direct indication that global warming is not a forecasted fictional entity, but a phenomenon happening in an evident and measurable pattern.
The Myth Claims
The heating effect of carbon dioxide, the human-produced gas responsible for global warming, is thought to be overestimated (Michaels “White House Blows Its Cool on Global Warming”). Overestimation, as well as misrepresentation, is often used in conjunction with the findings of environmental studies on global warming. Such conjunctions often describe either the amount of warming that resulted/will result from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, or the role of carbon dioxide in general in warming. The latter is widely linked to the connecting the causes of temperature increase to solar influences, and presumable ignorance of the Medieval Warm Period (Inhofe 4-5).
It can be implied that overestimation and the role of other factors in global warming are inconsistent with each other. On the one hand, overestimation is a relative term, implying a follow-up question: as opposed to what? The question of a threat that exists in global warming is irrelevant to the rate of the temperature increase, as long as such a rate exists. Accordingly, it is logical that the basis for the findings will be founded on the most recent examples, in which more accurate data are used. In that regard, it can be implied that in case the evidence from the medieval age was supportive of global warming, their credibility would have been questioned.
Another argument serving as the basis for global warming denial can be seen in the constant measure of cost/outcomes element in dealing with global warming. On the one hand, the emphasis is on the billions of dollars [which] have been spent in the last 20 years on climate science (Evans). On the other hand, there is an emphasis on the parties that might benefit from the raised attention to global warming, including “anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media” (The Washington Times).
Indeed, it is undeniable that any research, public policy, or study is supported and funded. Likewise, the involvement in global warming research might have brought indirect benefits such as political support, or in the case of Al Gore, even a Nobel Prize. Nevertheless, the unanimity of the consensus and the number of parties involved eliminate the possibility of a conspiracy theory, unless, of course, such conspiracy involves most countries in the developed world. Referring to anti-industrial environmentalists, as presumed parties benefitting from the global warming industry, contradicts the involvement of industrial countries in promoting global warming awareness.
Conclusion
Global warming is a real problem, which existence is scientifically supported. The existence of controversy around the question of whether global warming is real is basically related to the manipulation of quotes taken out of context. The research on global warming is still developing, which accordingly, implies the costs of the research and the involvement of other natural factors. Nevertheless, the unanimity and the nature of the evidence supporting the concern for global warming, clearly indicate the role of human influence on global warming.
Making an assumption that both theories have equal chances of being wrong, the consequences of ignoring global warming far outweigh the costs associated with climate change management. Nevertheless, considering that a scientific consensus exists, global warming is a real issue that should be ignored.
Works Cited
Easterbrook, Gregg. “Case Closed: The Debate About Global Warming Is Over “. 2006. Issues in Governance Studies. The Brookings Institution. Web.
Environmental Defense. “Global Warming: The History of an International Scientific Consensus “. 2003. Environmental Defense. Web.
Evans, Ray. “Reflections on the Global Warming Debate”. 2007. The Lavoisier Group. Web.
Inhofe, James. “Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge to Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”. 2006. US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Web.
LANGER, GARY. “Poll: Fewer Republicans and Conservatives Believe Global Warming Is Happening”. 2009. ABC News. Web.
Michaels, Patrick J. “A Blizzard of Global-Warming Hype”. 2010. CATO Institute. Web.
“White House Blows Its Cool on Global Warming”. 1998. CATO Institute. Web.
Pumilio, John. “Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence”. 2007. Evergreen. Web.
The Pew Research Center. “Little Consensus on Global Warming”. 2006. The Pew Research Center. Web.
The Washington Times. “Global Warming Labeled a ‘Scam’”. 2007. The Washington Times. Web.