Dissecting the Global Warming Debate

By Marcie Barnes

The audience of this article is mostly intended to be the students and professor in the class I am talking, Writing for Digital Media. However, anyone interested in (and with any knowledge of) the global warming debate is a welcome reader and commenter (changed from "participant").

Join me as I explore the below fundamental questions this semester:

(first paragraph deleted, first sentence changed to read as below:)

The possible serious implications of global warming have my attention. Are we contributing to our own extinction? If global warming is a reality (changed from "if it really is hurting Mother Earth") and humans are responsible, then we very likely are doing exactly that. 

This concept (changed from "sentiment") is discussed briefly, yet concisely by author Timothy Ferriss in his book, The Four Hour Workweek: "Human life has long been focused on the exclusion of the environment and the rest of the food chain, hence our current race to imminent extinction. Serves us right. The world does not exist solely for the betterment and multiplication of mankind."

("Thesis statement", glib comment and emoticon removed here.)

First, are we really warming? You've likely seen or read the reports: Time Magazine tells us our ice caps are melting, ABC News tells us extreme weather events are on the rise, the UK's Independent tells us that global warming is to blame for famine and drought and an increase in malaria cases and death is reported by the BBC.

The fact of the matter is, these horrible things really are happening; there can be no denial of that.

This article from pbs.org (added) says: "In the last century, the Earth has warmed by 1 degree Fahrenheit -- a change significant enough to cause atmospheric disturbances..."

Interestingly, it seems that there is also some cooling going on as well: "Temperatures in the stratosphere are decreasing due to a loss of ozone while temperatures in the troposphere are increasing due to global warming." Confused yet?
(new paragraph break)
Well, it boils down to this: the vast majority of scientists say, according to Wikipedia, (added comma and source) yes, we are warming, and yes this warming is having an impact on the travesties listed above. (instead of "above-named travesties occurring around the globe.")

It should also be noted that opponents of global warming tend to be people more interested in protecting our industrial applications and economy. This is understandable, of course, but any economic motivation should be noted, and questioned. ("(more later)" deleted.)

Second, are people responsible? This seemed to be the most important part of the debate at first. After all, if the earth is warming due to some natural cycle we can't control, then (comma deleted.) there is nothing we can do, right? (paragraph made more deliberative.)

Wrong. It would be illogical to to continue to contribute to global warming, regardless of its cause; and some of our habits and practices are plain destructive, regardless.

Can any scientist (or anyone, really) deny that the Industrial Revolution could be described as "burning things en masse"? Can we all agree that burning things creates heat? Sure, the debate mostly centers on (deleted "around".) greenhouse gases that ("which" deleted.) come from a variety of sources such as ("to include" deleted.) vehicle emissions, agriculture (yes, cow, pig.etc.) emissions and a multitude of industrial applications.

The majority of scientists also agree on this one: yes, humans are responsible. This National Geographic article details the findings of a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations".

This report was put together by hundreds of climate experts and a 113-country delegation of government officials who all unanimously approved this report.

Third: on hype, politics and the economy: Part of the problem with getting people to resonate with the dire nature of this situation is, unfortunately, the way it is sometimes played out by the media and in the political arena.

Often, this serious subject is sensationalized and used, ironically, to entice people to buy products from the very industries that are contributing to the problem. It seems that because of the very personal nature of the solutions necessary, it is easier for people to side with those who say that industry and the economy will suffer with too many "green controls." (One example of this is here).

What do you think? I will be investigating each of these facets of the debate this semester, and I hope you will join me. 

(changed glib ending.)