Global Warming Issues

Climate change is one of today’s most hotly debated topic. Scientists for many decades have made supposed claims that current energy creation and reliance on fossil fuels will lead to inevitable changes to the planet. Today, climate change denial is still a popular to most of the world despite the mounds of evidence to support that it exists. The climate change issue suffers from being mismanaged by various parties through focusing on the wrong issues and the lack of true commitment from the general public, according to Sandra Steingraber.

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

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

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

Today, we live in a dog-eat-dog, who’s better than who world. We live in a world where one person’s opinion on something is more important than another’s because they simply are more qualified. With all of the news sources and media outlets, we are left to figure out which source of information is more correct than another based on the credibility and qualifications of its author. This same problem occurs in the topic of climate change. When we look up information about climate change we must evaluate the credibility of the authors who are writing the articles we are reading. Once you are able to figure out which author is more credible the next step is to determine which author is more persuasive and able to convince the reader that their

Most people believe that the controversy of the existence of global warming stopped long ago. In fact, that is very untrue. The common belief is that, yes the earth is warming, the glaciers are melting, and our atmosphere is being polluted, all due to man-made green house gases. What’s new? Shockingly there are still some scientists who disagree. Global warming; a very controversial phenomenon that is still happening, which already is not being handled sufficiently enough, is being argued that it does not exist whatsoever. This causes the general public to believe that they are being educated on the falsehoods of modern science, when in fact that they need to be educated on when to distinguish misinformation for themselves. These

There have been plenty of disputes regarding the infamous topic global warming, despite the fact that there is a unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. A history professor at UCSD, Naomi Oreskes, discusses this in her article, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. She begins her investigation by researching credible experts and environmental organizations, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and several others. By utilizing these various sources as evidence it strengthens her argument about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In this case, Oreskes audience consists of

Climate change is one of the most controversial and ongoing topics in society today. Scientist and politicians alike all have opinions, but very often they are not in line with each other. 97% of climatologists agree that climate change is happening, as well as many of the large corporations in this field such as NASA, the Geological Society of America, and the American Association for the Advancement of science. Still, these debates take place on sites such as climatedebatedaily.com or the worldwide conference that was held on June 6, 2015 that took place 79 countries. Both sides claim to have solid evidence that supports their theories, but it is evident to most scientists and corporations alike that the human race is creating our own destruction

Mann, Michael E. The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars : Dispatches from the Front Lines. New York: Columbia UP, 2012. Print.

Johnson also points out how interest groups and well paid lobbyist are continually fighting the good fight in congress and the media to get the word out. The author also states how the definition of global warming has now expanded to include any and every weather disturbance, change, irregularity, and spontaneity. The main goal of Johnson is to let people know that scientific theory according to Karl Popper proves that global warming is false and the

97% of climate scientists agree that such increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration are man-made (Global Climate Change: Consensus). Why then is it that the news media treats such widely held views by experts as debate rather than consensus? The answer may lie in the media’s current and skewed standards of what constitutes “objectivity” and “balance”.

According to reporter and climate scientist, Michael Mann, he and other scientists are being hostilely confronted and unfairly treated because of the results of their research by critics or by those who do not choose to believe or want to accept that climate change or global warming is real and is caused by the harmful effects of man-caused greenhouse emission, also known as carbon monoxide (CO2). In Mann’s article, “Besieged by Climate Deniers: A Scientist Decides to Fight Back” greenhouse gases are destroying layers of the earth’s ozone or

Gallucci accurately labels Rose’s article as the “widely refuted Daily Mail article” (Gallucci 1). She even labels David Rose as a false journalist by highlighting a false climate science coverage and Iraqi weaponry claims (1). Gallucci backs up her labels by using twitter post from Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at U.C Berkeley and Gavin A. Schmidt, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (2). She also uses a blog post from Victor Vienna, a German scientist with the World Meteorological Organization (5). Lastly, she uses a penned rebuttal in a newspaper article by Peter Thorne, an Irish climate scientist, who worked on the NOAA study (5). Rose also uses bias by labeling by presenting Dr. John Bate’s evidence as “irrefutable”, instead of as unverified, as correctly mentioned in Gallucci’s article (Rose 1). He also quickly links the 2015 NOAA study to the infamous 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which scientists manipulated data before the UN summit (2). In fact, Rose renames the NOAA climate change study to “Climategate 2.0” (3). Rose’s limited sources include an interview John Bates, a study conducted by John Bates by himself, and quotes from Professor Curry from Georgia Institute of Technology (1). Gallucci’s sources are a diverse set of scientists, who can accurately speak to the issue of climate

The issue of global warming should be on the list of our top priorities. Studies show that the average of global temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution began. Since the Industrial Revolution, human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of certain heat extremes and many scientists have warned that a failure to bring greenhouse gases under control could eventually lead to a 62-fold increase in extreme heat blasts (Gillis Justin A17). Most of the increase is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These activities contribute to a build-up in carbon dioxide and other gases in Earth’s atmosphere. The Earth’s atmosphere is made of gases like nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. These gases act as a blanket that covers and gives us warmth, but once these gases such as carbon dioxide absorbs heat, but does not release it back into space in which causes the increase in global temperature. This is called the greenhouse effect because it only traps heat but does not release it.