2008 Woodie Awards
Weekly Discourse:Are man's emission of greenhouse gases a cause of global warming?
An inconvenient opinion
Kyle Miller
Issue date: 2/8/07 Section: Op/Ed
- Page 1 of 1
Last week, the United Nations made progress in blaming humanity for global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report that profoundly declared that humans were the "very likely" cause of climate change. This is a significant declaration, for in 2001, they concluded that humans were the "likely" cause. The report linked the rising global temperature with manmade greenhouse gases. However, for many of us, this link remains more ambiguous than the IPCC and Al Gore would like us to believe.
According to this recent report, which has been praised as the final 'nail in the coffin' for global warming skeptics, manmade greenhouse gasses are "likely" to cause among other things: hotter temperatures, more rainfall or drought in some regions and more frequent and deadly hurricanes. The report also predicted that ocean levels will rise between 7 and 23 inches by 2100, while temperatures will increase 3.2 - 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the same time period.
What has happened to the opposing position? There seems to be a discriminatory faction who would like to suppress any voice of moderation or doubt on the subject. The media sees global warming as one of its protectorate projects or "darling issues" and has pounced on any dissenting or differing opinion. One host on The Weather Channel argued that if a meteorologist expresses criticism about the human link to global warming, they should be stripped of their credentials. Another reaction to those publicly expressing doubt of the cataclysmic global warming forecasts, was the labeling of such skeptics as "holocaust deniers". Also in transparent affirmation of their position, Hollywood and 'the academy' have jumped on the opportunity to recognize Al Gore for his documentary achievement on global warming alarmism, which could place him in the stratosphere of stardom with contemporaries such as Michael Moore.
Before taking a giant leap of faith in the global warming apocalypse phenomenon, which places the blame almost entirely on humanity, perhaps one should take a look at other contributions to the changing environment. Despite the obvious historical precedence of climate change, one example of contradiction is found in a report by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. The report estimates that livestock "emissions" are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases, which is a larger share than that of transportation. With this in mind, it is possible to recognize that not all sources on manmade climate change can to tally agree on the cause. Also there is some confusion about the signs or evidence of global warming, which indicates the shift in terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change', as to inclusively cover whatever occurs out of the ordinary.
Despite skepticism in the doomsday scenarios presented by global warming alarmists, energy and environmental conservation are still necessary and important principles. In his first inaugural, Jefferson said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." Therefore, complete affirmation of global warming is not mutually exclusive to the acknowledgement that pollution is unhealthy, detrimental to the environment and our way of life. This leaves the opportunity for constructive debate which should not be stifled because, through it, the path to helping solve these difficult problems can be found.
According to this recent report, which has been praised as the final 'nail in the coffin' for global warming skeptics, manmade greenhouse gasses are "likely" to cause among other things: hotter temperatures, more rainfall or drought in some regions and more frequent and deadly hurricanes. The report also predicted that ocean levels will rise between 7 and 23 inches by 2100, while temperatures will increase 3.2 - 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit in the same time period.
What has happened to the opposing position? There seems to be a discriminatory faction who would like to suppress any voice of moderation or doubt on the subject. The media sees global warming as one of its protectorate projects or "darling issues" and has pounced on any dissenting or differing opinion. One host on The Weather Channel argued that if a meteorologist expresses criticism about the human link to global warming, they should be stripped of their credentials. Another reaction to those publicly expressing doubt of the cataclysmic global warming forecasts, was the labeling of such skeptics as "holocaust deniers". Also in transparent affirmation of their position, Hollywood and 'the academy' have jumped on the opportunity to recognize Al Gore for his documentary achievement on global warming alarmism, which could place him in the stratosphere of stardom with contemporaries such as Michael Moore.
Before taking a giant leap of faith in the global warming apocalypse phenomenon, which places the blame almost entirely on humanity, perhaps one should take a look at other contributions to the changing environment. Despite the obvious historical precedence of climate change, one example of contradiction is found in a report by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. The report estimates that livestock "emissions" are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gases, which is a larger share than that of transportation. With this in mind, it is possible to recognize that not all sources on manmade climate change can to tally agree on the cause. Also there is some confusion about the signs or evidence of global warming, which indicates the shift in terminology from 'global warming' to 'climate change', as to inclusively cover whatever occurs out of the ordinary.
Despite skepticism in the doomsday scenarios presented by global warming alarmists, energy and environmental conservation are still necessary and important principles. In his first inaugural, Jefferson said, "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle." Therefore, complete affirmation of global warming is not mutually exclusive to the acknowledgement that pollution is unhealthy, detrimental to the environment and our way of life. This leaves the opportunity for constructive debate which should not be stifled because, through it, the path to helping solve these difficult problems can be found.