Introduction
Today, more than ever, science is used by decision makers to know the best way to deal with a given problem. This is especially true for environmental issues, such as food production, water distribution and climate change. During the last decades, policy makers have been trying to use the data made available by scientist around the world to assess the impact of climate change on the planet, mainly its geo-economic implications, and the ways to tackle the issues associated with it in the most effective way.
Although there is a general consensus that there has been a steady increase in temperature worldwide, which might have great ecological, environmental and economic consequences , the consensus does not seem so strong when discussing the causes of said temperature increase . In fact there is solid physical evidence indicating that the reports issued by governmental agencies might not be following rigorous scientific methods and could be strongly influenced by lobbyists and political agendas . Moreover, those are reports and opinions that are highly taken into account by governments all around the world when formulating policies to solve real world issues.
This paper aims to shed some light on this issue and find out if it is possible to discuss global warming from a more scientifically balanced approach. The work is divided in four parts. The first part will present the general assumptions regarding Global Warming, the second part will discuss the science behind those assumptions and offer a different point of view based on a more scientific approach. The third part will offer a summary of the argument given on this paper and its significance. Lastly, the fourth part is the author´s evaluation on this specific subject.
Global Warming as a Threat to Life on Earth
It is often argued that Global Warming is a recent phenomenon that started during the late 19th century and has been going on ever since, and apparently there are a great number of sources that offer ample evidence on the subject. Professor Lomborg offers a compilation of journalistic and academic sources that depict this warming as a global catastrophe and take it for granted that the environment has been scarred by human activity beyond the point of no return . There is also a periodic report issued by one department of the United Nations, based on studies made by thousands of scientists, that urges governments, policy makers and international organizations to take actions that lead to reduction of human impact on environment in order to mitigate the effects of global warming . Former Vice President Al Gore did also release a film where he urges governments and political activists to take actions in this regard in order to avoid disastrous consequences caused by man-made global warming .
The general assumption made by all these sources is that Global Warming is originated by human activity, and that carbon emissions, being carbon dioxide the main culprit, are the chief cause of worldwide temperature rise . In his film, Al Gore gives a wealth of data that shows convincing evidence that a rise in temperatures of just a few degrees would cause major floods, food shortages, intense droughts, spread of epidemic diseases, and major extinction events . He finally concludes that immediate action had to be taken in order to avoid these events from happening in the next ten years, of which 7 have already passed. The IPCC seems to support Al Gore´s claims and give thousands of pages of evidence that Global Warming is primarily caused by human action .
Scientific Thinking
In spite of the persuasiveness of the arguments presented by the IPCC, Al Gore and environmentalist organizations, such as Green Peace and the World Wide Fund for Nature, physical science cautions against uncritical acceptance of any general assumptions. Science is the only kind of literature that is made with the purpose of being refuted. For that matter, a Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was established to analyze evidence that was overlooked by the IPCC.
There´s no denying that temperatures have increased during the last century or so, but the nature of that temperature increase might not be connected to any human activity whatsoever. In fact, “Earth´s temperature has fluctuated naturally between about +4°C and -6°C with respect to twentieth century temperature” . If the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled those found in pre-industrial levels, it would only cause a 1°C variation at worst, contradicting climate models made by the IPCC that predict a warming up of up to 6°C . But even when humans might cause an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide, there appears to be no correlation between carbon emissions and temperature increases. In fact, it seems that CO2 levels today are 15 times lower than in other geological periods, and more of it would help “green” the planet as it constitutes an important part of the plants nutrients . In the same fashion, one can find data and important scientific studies in the report made by the NIPCC that refutes most of the assertions made by the IPCC, but there are special interests that need to be backed up by the so-called scientific consensus of the IPCC to advance their political agendas (Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2006, Idso, Carter, & Singer, 2013).
What This Means
The predominant opinion of policy makers assumes that what the IPCC states is true and they device policies that take these analysis into account without critical thinking. Assumption that what a governmental agency concludes without waiting for a more equilibrated analysis of data, can bring about the formulation of flawed policies that might make governments and international organizations spend money on actions that intend to solve issues but end up being not cost-efficient at all (Timoner, Cool It, 2010, Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist, 2006).
Personal Evaluation and Appreciation
Science is not something that should be used as a subterfuge by governments or organizations to advance political agendas, science is just the best way to have the best available knowledge in order to make informed decisions. Honest scientists present findings and information even when it contradicts their beliefs, just as Bjorn Lomborg did. There are things that governments could be doing better but just refrain from doing them because of misconceptions they might assume as truths. We could do more for the world if we just cared enough to do some research before acting upon any given information we might encounter.
References
Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2006). An Inconvenient Truth: A Global Warning [Motion Picture].
Idso, C., Carter, R., & Singer, F. (2013). Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science. Chicago: Heartland Institute.
Lomborg, B. (2006). The Skeptical Environmentalist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Climate Change 2007; The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timoner, O. (Director). (2010). Cool It [Motion Picture].
