Fred Singer uses data specifically from the past 10 years to support his claim that global warming isn’t real or temperature is not rising, representing a biased sample. The data from the past 10 years are used selectively to tailor his arguments. One could pick any end points in the climate change data and find a cooling trend but if you were to look at the overall data, the temperature continues to rise at an exponential rate. Fred Singers argument uses a specific interpretation of data to appeal to the reasoning side of the public. A potentially better argument could be, cooling trends can be plotted at any end points on the temperature data, but the long term data shows an exponential growth in temperature.
Climate change is the long term shift in global climate patterns attributed mainly to the use of fossil fuels. Many people are aware of this issue, however, there has been an increase in the amount of people who deny climate change. 23 percent of Americans (compared to last year’s 16 percent) believe that climate change is not a problem (Atkin). To conclude that people do not accept climate change because they do not understand it or need to be educated about it, is reasonable. However, I believe that it isn’t skepticism driving this denial. Rather, it is the phenomenon of reaffirming one’s identity. Instead of analyzing the evidence, it is intentionally interpreted in such a way as to maintain a pre-existing belief.
An urgent issue, climate change is undoubtedly a sweeping global dilemma of paramount importance. Though most people are aware of this fact, many either choose to ignore it, or acknowledge it, but take no action against it. Those who do choose to take action usually attempt to combat climate change by using the methods that are most commonly discussed: becoming more energy efficient, recycling, and reducing emissions through using more sustainable transportation. Though these actions are helpful, they are not the most efficient way to counter climate change.
Beginning with Mark Hendrickson’s argument, he recognizes that the climate is changing. He wrote in his article “Climate Change-Hoax or Crime of the Century” that the Earth has emerged from a Little Ice Age not that long ago, and it would be worrisome if the climate around the globe was not warming
Charles Krauthammer writes an excellent article by attacking the debate over climate change in “The Myth of “Settled Science””. He opens up the article stating that he takes a neutral stance and that neither those who agree or disagree with climate change are right. His main go to target is President Obama. Charles believes that the global warming debate can never be settled. This is because, science is always changing. Based on support of Richard McNider and John Christy, science and technology cannot prove that climate change is a fact or doesn’t exist. With examples of unnecessary mammograms that cause harm rather than good, he questions how can science predict the future based on certain events. He proves that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t the
Koonin, who was the undersecretary for science in the Energy Department, a professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, a chief scientist of BP, and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. With all those positions, Koonin appears to be a very credible proponent for delaying climate change. He argues that climate science is not settled and society should, in turn, hold off in making brash decisions. Koonin states that there are three challenges to why climate change is not settled: the climate systems variability, the poor understanding of oceans regarding climate, and the uncertainties regarding positive and negative feedback loops (2). In other words, Koonin is saying that there are many things we do not know when we predict the climate. Koonin adds that “although most [computer] models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth’s climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect” all the things he stated that climate science is not settled on (3). Ergo, he concludes by saying “any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future” (5). Koonin is concerned less with the certainties of climate change than with the uncertainties of climate change. This is troubling because it delays and perhaps halts the general public from agreeing towards a sensible solution in dealing with climate change. Primarily, all humans fear uncertainties -- nothing is scarier than not knowing what can happen. So if humans are scared due to the uncertainty of a situation, they hold off from making decisions which are vital to their future. Nonetheless, life is filled with uncertainties and that should not prevent society from making progress on climate change. After all, it would be wiser to
Mann begins his article by addressing the common occurrence of scientists having their work questioned by other scientists. These questions are always asked in an effort to better their work and for the sake of advancing scientific knowledge. However, politicians and ideologues also question scientists simply because they dislike the scientists’ findings. He states that him and his colleagues have fallen victim to various political interests and those who do not want to believe or accept that there is a climate change, which is owed to the harmful effects of man-caused greenhouse emission, also known as carbon
In Dayton Duncan’s New York Times op-ed “Are We Loving Our National Parks to Death” he brings up the argument about how we are not preserving our national parks like we use to when they were first established. Duncan also tells us that climate change is affecting some of the national parks. Climate change is man made and we need to change our ways or the future generations won't be able to see some of the national parks. Scientists today are more certain, than what they have been in the past, that climate change is man made. Climate change causes natural disasters to happen more frequently and makes them hit harder. Even though there is data that proves that climate change is caused by humans, there are still people who deny it because they
Throughout this article, most of it pertained to how the environmental community has shown that global warming is a social problem, while the public determined that global warming is a legitimate problem and supports policies that work against it. However, during the 1990s, the United State’s policies and beliefs on global warming were put into question. This is a result of the conservative movement challenging the notion whether or not climate change and global warming are social problems. The conservative movement pushes this further by using the media, creating policy forums, and sponsoring press conferences for policy makers in order to emphasize their point on how global warming is not a serious social issue.
Pollan explains how climate change is a very realistic problem, that has to be addressed. We are presented with the statement, that “…the warming and melting is occurring much faster than the models predicted.” He uses this argument presented by scientists to illustrate just a brief idea of how big the problems we are in are. Michael creates deeper worry when he continues to say “Scientists’ projections that seemed dire a decade ago turn out to have been unduly optimistic.” While creating distress in our minds, he makes an attempt to scare us to
Polar bears sweating, the Earth reforming into a volcano, and oxygen artificially supplied to the atmosphere is the future of tomorrow. It is unfortunately a consequence of our activities today. Global warming is an extremely adverse word and a great deal of controversy. It is all an interconnected process of globalization, hence having human activities cause global warming and destruction of the environment.
Even though there is evidence proving that the increasing danger of climate change and global warming is a threat to all life, anti-believers argue that although 2014 was deemed the hottest year on record, the year saw record snow and cold in all four hemispheres. Additionally, oceans are rising much less than predicted. In 2005, Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100. However, 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. In fact, many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years (Top Ten Reasons). These statistics accurately represent how torn many are on the subject of climate change. Although there are great points to be made on each side, it is always better to be safe than sorry, and the fight against climate change, believe or not, should be in the back of one’s mind at all
The importance of climate change, which is always debatable, has now become more controversial. It is believed that climate change has serveral negative impacts, thus it needs to be studied. As far as I am concerned, I strongly concur with the argument that causes and solutions need to be investigated. This article will elaborate the antropogenic impacts and potential solutions and thus lead to a logical conclusion.
Craven talks about in his book, it can be very helpful. It is possible to find evidence for any argument if you look hard enough, and the credibility spectrum give a good way to decide who you should be listening to. One example of a source that is pretty good is the IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a panel of scientific climate experts from all around the globe that about every five years compiles a report on, essentially, everything new and important in climate change. This is a very good source because, all of these people are experts in their fields, they come from a vast number of scientific fields, as well as from countries all over the world, and they all look at the report to ensure that the information they put out is as accurate and current as possible. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences would also be a good source to turn to. Being elected to be part of the NAS is a great honor in the scientific community, and it carries with it the understanding that you have made great contributions to science and that you know what you’re talking about. So, while it isn’t perfect, it would be worth it to look at and listen to what the member of the NAS are listening to, because they have a lot of experience under their