These days global warming has become a hot topic for discussion. However, differing reports about this phenomenon makes one wonder what to believe. There seem to be different stakes working behind the scenes – of those that are alarmed by the phenomenon, and those that think it is over-hyped. Before reviewing both sides of the issue, it is important to understand what it means.

The term ‘global warming’ refers to the consistent rise in the earth’s atmospheric temperature because of the release of ‘greenhouse gases’ like carbon dioxide. Such gases are released through burning of materials like wood, coal, gas, etc. These gases are responsible for trapping heat in the atmosphere, leading to warmer temperatures that disrupt the delicate ecosystem (aproundtable.org). Though the majority believes that human activities have caused irrevocable damage to the environment, some skeptics feel the panic is unnecessary. There is a lot of evidence cited by both sides to substantiate their respective viewpoints.

The climatic and environmental evidence of the damage alarms many people. Heat waves and periods of unusually warm weather; ocean warming, sea-level rise and coastal flooding; melting glaciers; and Arctic and Antarctic warming are significant changes that can be seen in the earth’s environment. Other changes can be seen as harbingers to bigger impacts that will become more frequent: spreading disease, early spring, population shifts, changes in plant and animal range, coral reef bleaching, droughts, fires, downpours, heavy snowfall and flooding. This collective body of observations seems to point to climate change and global warming (climatehotmap.com).

It is important to understand how the harbingers of change point to irrevocable changes in flora and fauna. Plants and animals would react to the raised temperatures by moving to higher altitudes. Certain diseases will spread on rise in temperatures. Mosquitoes thrive in higher temperatures and their range will extend as more regions become warmer. Malaria outbreaks could occur in highland regions, and dengue cases are already being reported from regions outside the normal limits in Mexico and Central America. Similarly, early arrival of spring would result in earlier plant blooming, which would result in a change in animal migration, egg-laying and spawning. Competitive balances among species would alter. Many species would not be able to adapt to the changes and might decline or become extinct. For example, the microscopic algae that are responsible for coloring and nourishing coral reefs would not be able to survive in waters becoming warm even by 1 ºC. This phenomenon of coral reef bleaching is already occurring in the Caribbean, Florida Keys, Bahamas, and Bermuda (climatehotmap.com).

Additionally, there would be dramatic changes in the climatic patterns. One of the most obvious changes would be a widespread increase in precipitation because of a faster rate of evaporation. This has been an increasing trend since 1910. Flooding and other damages, including disruption in crops, will increasingly accompany this phenomenon. At other places, there would be droughts because of the temperature increase, bringing on wildfires, pest infections and disease. Florida reports the worst periods of droughts and wildfires in a century (climatehotmap.com).

On the other hand, the skeptics who disbelieve claims of global warming put forward many reasons for their stance. They cite the conclusions of some scientists and researchers who believe that the entire issue is overblown and misdirected. A band of seventeen thousand scientists has even signed a petition, which states that there is no conclusive evidence of greenhouse gases heating the atmosphere and causing damage. Some climate surveys also seem to support this view. Satellite readings of temperature seem to show that lower troposphere temperatures have not increased since twenty-three years, when recordings first began. These recordings are highly accurate, and data is collected from weather balloons released in the air. The skeptics theorize that the land-based recording instruments that point to a warming trend must be contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, or are due to human error (aprountable.com).

In addition, skeptics say that computer generated models, not historical data, are used to predict global warming. In order to predict the impacts and changes, ‘adjustments’ are made in the model, which might skew results by as much as twenty-five times. These kinds of adjustments have been done for so long that some say it has become the norm. In fact, an IPCC report also claims that any predictions about climate are quite uncertain because of the dynamic nature of the atmosphere-ocean relation (aproundtable.com). According to this theory, global warming predictions are over-hyped due to these inaccuracies.

One of the greatest arguments against global warming is the reasoning that a small rise in temperatures could in fact be beneficial to the natural world and human civilization. When the first civilizations began to settle, between 5000-3000 B.C., the period was “climactic optimum” and was warmer than now. On the other hand, efforts to reduce emissions would mean losing 2.4 million jobs in the USA, and $300 billion loss in economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion because of less economic output, and property values would fall. Moreover, full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in 2100 A.D. by a mere 0.14 º C. This reasoning makes it hard to accept the economic restrictions to minimize emissions (aproundtable.com).

After widespread spending on environmental projects in the 1990s, states in the US now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Many states persist in backing expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund these programs, which the skeptics say will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions (aproundtable.com).

While both the alarmists and the skeptics have built a body of data and reasoning using science to support their respective stances, the public remains a spectator. It remains for us to use our commonsense and be on the lookout for any global threats that may take us suddenly by surprise - whether environmental, or economic.

References

American Policy Roundtable. (2007). Eight Arguments against global warming. Retrieved May 30, 2008. from

Environmental Defense, etc. (1999). Impact of global warming in North America. 30 May. 2008