Organization
For
Why We Should Act to Stop Global Warming—and Why We Won't.
In the article, Why We Should Act to Stop Global Warming-and Why Won’t, the author talks about why she believes that global warming should be curbed and how she also knows it won’t be. The author starts the article by stating that the she believes that global warming should be curbed because she believes in the scientific and intellectual capabilities of scientists like Ron Bailey, Jonathan Adler and Pat Cato, all of whom believed that global warming is happening for real and should be curbed. The author goes on to explain that the governments targets for environmental protection are weak and from the planet’s view point do nothing to prevent the aggressive onset of global warming. The author ponders on the fact that when the government finds it hard to meet weaker targets, for e.g. the European carbon trading scheme, how it will ever achieve a global consensus on the actual, robust targets.
The aut
hor firmly believes that global warming can lead to extreme climate changes and a dangerous catastrophe, but says that any amount of advocating the issue would not make people understand its importance. She believes that all those people who downplay global warming are the ones who tried to understand it, found it difficult and decided to leave it.
Against
No Need to Panic About Global Warming.
In the article, No Need to Panic About Global Warming, sixteen scientist gave their view on why there is no need to panic about the increasing danger of global warming. The article starts by stating that as opposed to common belief that all scientist demand a dramatic step to stop global warming, there is a growing section of scientist who believe and propagate that no drastic and huge actions to curb global warming is needed. The article quotes the example of Dr. Ivar Giaver, a Nobel-prize winner, who resigned from the American Physical Society because he did not believe in the society’s mission that global warming is happening and if it is not stopped it would lead to adverse ecological affects. The article further goes on to state that the reason behind the increase in the number of scientist refuting the occurrence of global warming is due to the hard scientific facts which includes the fact about the lack of global warming over the past decade. Another major fact that the scientists believe is that CO2 is an odourless, colourless gas which is a key component of our biosphere and is not a pollutant. These scientists firmly believe that the increase in the amount of CO2 led to a better variety and quality of plants and agricultural yields. The article goes on to state many other facts like the negative ROI and benefit-to-cost ration to establish the importance of schemes that increased economic growth when not controlled by greenhouse gas regulations.
The articles ends with stating that the most scientist who believe in their instruments, observations and facts also believe that more CO2 can only lead to overall positive outcome and benefit to the society. Every rational person should believe in protecting the environment but there is no logic behind supporting expensive schemes that divert the resources from where they are really needed to areas based on untenable claims of irrefutable reference.
References
- Mcardle, Megan. (2012, Feb 28). Why We Should Act to Stop Global Warming—and Why We Won't. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com
- Claude, Allegre et al. (2012, Jan 25). No Need to Panic About Global Warming. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html.
