Introduction
Global warming is a topic of considerable controversy among scientists and ordinary people. This disagreement is often not about individual parameters of the process but its importance in general. Skepticism about global warming may stem from personal beliefs and financial factors. For example, people or organizations that deny the extent or existence of global warming may finance the creation and dissemination of incorrect information. Thus, this topic of global warming is characterized by a great deal of speculation and biased information.
Discussion
It is common for some people, including the well-educated, to deny the importance of scientific data. This tendency may include the belief that scientific research is wrong, or it may be motivated by the prevalence of certain societal attitudes. Furthermore, global warming critics may distort information or omit inconvenient facts to manipulate public opinion. For instance, Steve Goreham (2013) argued that current warming “was not abnormal compared to the Medieval Warm Period” (as cited in Easton, n.d., p. 80). However, Dr. Delia Oppo, an author cited by Goreham, claimed that the Medieval Warm Period does not automatically make recent warming natural (Abraham, 2013). In addition, Goreham omitted empirical facts that contradict his position. For example, he ignored that the global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) between 1901 and 2016; these are the warmest values in modern history (U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2017). By doing that, Goreham portrayed global warming as something trivial or even nonexistent.
Given the recurrence of erroneous data use, the discrepancies with official studies indicate the author’s desire to prove their point by all means. I believe that anthropogenic climate change is dangerous to the planet. In this regard, it is necessary to rely on verified academic research. However, it is important to follow non-mainstream studies to promptly reveal and debunk false statements made by biased or incompetent individuals.
Conclusion
The improper application of scientific information is one of the means of influencing public opinion. It is essential to understand that using verified data with modifications in the wrong context can build a distorted point of view. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the factors influencing the studies, including personal beliefs and the financial aspect. In the context of climate issues, it is particularly relevant, given the presence of fierce supporters and opponents of the importance of this topic. This issue requires an unbiased approach and proper information filtering regardless of personal beliefs.
References
Abraham, J. (2013). Heartland Institute wastes real scientists’ time – yet again. The Guardian.
Easton, T. A. (n.d.). Is anthropogenic global warming real and dangerous? Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Science, Technology, and Society, 12, 67–83.
U.S. Global Change Research Program. (2017). Climate science: Special report.