Global Warming: Environmental Emergency or Green Hysteria
Global warming, the increase of the earthâ€™s average temperature, is an issue that has come to the forefront of scientific, political, and public thought. While the majority of the global scientific community appears in agreement that climate change is occurring and worthy of serious concern, a significant minority have expressed dissenting opinions (Anderegg, et al, 2010). The main arguments against global warming range from whether it is actually occurring or merely scientific speculation; whether the attention on global warming is just another form of media scaremongering; if global warming is occurring, what are its ...view middle of the document...
It is not scientific or humane to ignore overwhelming evidence of current and impending environmental disaster.
It is also worth noting that when there has been opposition against global warming, a significant number of these perspectives come from scientific researchers funded by corporations whose revenues are threatened by this particular form of environmental consciousness (Parkinson, 2010). The oil and coal industry have been shown to have funded research that challenged the validity of global warming (Nesmith, 2003). Though some scientists may appear admirable for taking the opposing side of the climate change issue in order to maintain a â€œbalancedâ€ perspective for science, this is not an issue for a speech and debate class. Global warming is a phenomenon that has already been established as a critical world-wide issue with real-world consequences that demands immediate attention from the worldâ€™s top thinkers and scientists. If we continue to debate the existence or significance of global warming then we will be unable to move forward towards solutions that are vital for the future and current safety of humans and the rest of the earthâ€™s inhabitants.
The importance of dissent must not be underestimated when it comes to popular causes such as global warming. It is easy to succumb to emotional hysteria and ignore the need for a calm, detailed look at all perspectives and possibilities when it comes to research that affects such a wide range of interests: environment, health, public and economic policy. That critics have called global warming a â€œnew religionâ€ reveals the cult-like fervor of advocates of global warming, and their heated animosity aimed at those who dare explore alternative perspectives and research climate change (Dysonâ€™s view, as quoted by Dawidoff, 2009). But for science to be scienceâ€”for the true pursuit of knowledge to be as accurate as possibleâ€”all options must be considered equally; all research must be undertaken before a conclusion is made. The problem with the global warming argument is that there has been a divorcing of science from climate change propaganda. The facts are not reviewed without bias or leading assumptions. Climate change predictions are treated as truth, and emotional logic trumps calm, open-minded research. The media has managed to decontextualize climate change to the point that â€œâ€¦less attention is paid to issues of causation, scientific claims, and potential impacts, while more attention is granted to how climate change superficially intersects with everyday politicking and business issuesâ€ (Young and Dugas, 2011). Global warming is presented as a given, and analysis becomes less about scientific research and facts, but more about the agendas of different political parties and businesses.
The blanket criticism aimed at climate change skeptics is unfounded. Vogel and Lazar (2010) argue that even in quality journalistic coverage, preeminent journalists...