You are on page 1of 4

The global warming apocalypse is coming!

The world is close to extinction and it is all because of you a consuming, polluting, reckless person! These absurd statements are commonly believed by many people. However, there is no consensus among scientists, politicians, and governments, whether global warming is real. Although many people believe global warming is very real and humans are causing the death of the earth, an equal amount of people, scientists, politicians, etc., believe global warming is an exaggerated myth. Richard S. Lindzen is one, of the many, that believe there is no global warming. First, by exploring Lindzens view on global warming I will prove respected scholars view global warming as a myth and there is not a consensus between scientists. I will then explore a contradicting argument from David Biello who believes global warming is a serious issue and prove it incorrect. Finally, I will share my point of view of why I believe global warming is a myth. In Lindzens article, No Global Warming, he proves global warming is a myth and supports it with scientific facts and shows how global warming is simply a natural fluctuation. He also proves that scientists do not agree that global warming exists nor that global warming is a direct result from human actions. Lindzen breaks his article into three parts, Al Gores movie Inconvenient Truth, the scientist consensus, and evidence against global warming, which allows him to provide convincing facts that this world phenomena is not real. In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore claims there is a planetary emergency and steps need to be taken to prevent further warming. Lindzen refers to an interview between George Stephanopoulos and Gore, showing Gore constantly contradicts himself; thus proving Gores movie is not based on facts. Stephanopoulos confronted Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire then he suggests. Mr. Gore defended his claim by noting scientists dont have any models that give them a high level of confidence one way or the other and then he went on to claim (in his defense) that scientists dont know... they just dont know. This statement proves not only are the claimed facts about the effects and causes of global warming are not based on

evidence and are simply hypothesis, additionally scientists do not agree about global warming. This then leads into his second point that scientists are not all sure that global warming is caused by human actions or is real. A 1988 issue of Newsweek officially declared there is an agreement among scientists. Gregg Easterbrook, an environmental journalist, seconds the Newsweek article. Additionally, Lindzen points out there is little disagreement that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen from 280 ppmv in the 19th century to 387 ppmv today. By looking at both the surface and atmospheric temperatures the correlation between the rise in ppmv and rise in temperature does not exist. The climate change community has agreed that the global mean temperature has increased by 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past century. The models imply that green house gases should impact atmospheric temperature more than surface temperature, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The surface temperature rose significantly from about 1919 to 1940, but then decreased between 1940 and early 70s, followed by another increase until the 90s, and has remains flat since 1988. The rise and fall of temperatures suggest a natural cycle. These facts are just a few Lindzen refers to in his argument, he also uses Greenland, alpine glaciers, malaria, hurricanes, and the National Academy of Sciences to prove global warming is all hype and not fact. Lindzen first points out the Arctic was much warmer in the 1940s then it is currently. There is an increase in pressure, caused by Greenlands rise in temperature, pushing ice off the coastal perimeter. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since early the early 1800s and were advancing several centuries before that. Now, since the 1970s the glaciers have stopped retreating and are advancing again. The National Academy of Sciences publicly stated the difficulties with attribution, The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. No one really knows the effect people have on global warming. Another fact he uses is hurricanes. Hurricanes vary on multidecadal time scales but scientists cant attribute any single hurricane to global warming. Greg

Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argues that it must be Global Warming because he cant think of anything else. Lindzen article proves not only that there is no consensus on global warming but the facts show the temperature increase throughout centuries suggest there is just a natural cycle. David Biellos article State if the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario states that global warming is indeed a real, irreversible problem that the world is facing. His argument consists of nine points, warming temperature, heat waves, heavy rainfall, drought, stronger storms, decrease in biodiversity, rise in sea levels, carbon intensity increasing, and carbon sinks slowing. Biello starts out his article by saying it is 90% certain that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming. He mentions the four IPCC reports which are written by 2,500 scientists and other experts. The first report discusses the actual physical science of global warming (he does not go into detail about what this actually means), the second report explains how human induced warming is having a discernible influence on the planet, the third report deals with the ignorance of the worlds population, the last report is know as the synthesis report which states global warming is irreversible (but no solutions presented). Biello believes continued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. Heavy rains and drought are negative effects of global warming. He estimates that there is more than 66 percent chance that droughts will become more frequent and widespread The warming of oceans will likely increase power of tropical cyclones which will harm not only the environment but will put human lives in danger. Additionally, a third of species may be at risk if the average temperature rises by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius. Sea level rise is another one of Bielllos concerns because the ice sheets will melt which will lead to migration of people. His last argument is an increasing danger are carbon sinks are slowing which means oceans and forests are absorbing less CO2. Biello claims CO2 emission have grown more than 3% annually since 2000.

Climate change is much more likely to be part of a cycle of warming and cooling that has happened regularly every 1,500 years for the last million years. Human produced CO2 has increased over the last 100 years, which is believed to add to the Greenhouse effect. But CO2 levels have changed for various reasons in the past. There is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. Plus, If the small observed increase in temperature was due to increasing CO2 rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system the mean temperature should have increased by more. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down after the temperature has done so, and are the result of, not the cause of warming. No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man made causes. More support that global warming does not exist is the actual rise in temperature. Accurate satellite, balloon, and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Yet Beillo claims there has been a significant change, how is he measuring the temperature, his article was vague on where he obtained his facts. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming over the last 100 years, which is natural variations. If global warming is caused by humans, CO2 levels and temperatures should have increase more. Glaciers, also, have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. Science is based on facts not opinions or interpretations yet there is no consensus on global warming statistics. This leads me to believe that the facts are skewed and global warming is exaggerated more then anything.