Climate Change Contrarians

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

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

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

At this point, Patterson approaches the core of his argument, wherein he provides what he believes to be sufficient evidence that the idea global warming will soon cease to be a threat to the progress. He argues that the “fever is breaking, as more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm”. The use of a fever as a

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.

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

The climate change is overall change, which has taken place in global climate pattern due to increase of carbon dioxide in many folds. Whether it is responsibility of individual or the government to control the climate change has become a moot point for many years. Proponents and opponents of both the views have their own strong arguments. Before coming to an end, I would like to light on both the views in my imminent paragraphs.

While a good portion of his work covers the damage that has already surfaced Earth, he proposes a plethora of theories regarding what the future may look like. Although the element of terror is part of his technique in persuading his audience into caring about the pressing issue of climate change, it is not scientifically accurate—nobody can predict future events with complete assurance. In addition to this, if there is one thing to take away from this book, it is that Bill McKibben eats, sleeps, and breathes the project of decreasing the carbon dioxide molecules to 350 parts per million—a safe ratio. While it is true that at the beginning of civilization, our atmosphere contained only 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide, which is a lot lower than it is now, McKibben is the founder of 350.org. This environmental organization is his personal project which aims to equalize the unsafe ratio that currently exists. Due to his personal investment in the organization, it seems as though McKibben is biased towards this movement which is why it is so prioritized in his

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.

While people are becoming more frugal and aware of dwindling resources, adding a new member to your family may make it more difficult to conserve and reuse natural resources. You may want to consider cloth diapering to help you be a "green parent". Since cloth diapering is a bit more pricey initially, you may want to weigh the pros and cons of this particular diapering method. Pros of Cloth Diapering Cloth diapers are less harmful to the environment, because they create less waste.

The author is questioning the connection between the obligation a state holds to protect the livelihood and property of its citizens, and whether denying to “address” climate change makes them liable for the negative effects it has on their citizens. If refusal to mediate climate change, on an international level, constitute as neglect of state duty when climate change has a direct impact on people’s lives. The rights issue is lies between the right to state sovereignty and the rights of individuals to protection and well-being.

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

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.

which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential of

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