Why is there still a debate over climate change? It seems like an utterly wasted discussion. Skeptics (many of which subscribe to a conservative way of thinking) have disputed the evidence because there is not 100 percent agreement amongst the scientific community. But when did that become the bar for consensus?
The notion that we must apply the “100 percent” standard is utterly ridiculous, in part because it is a standard that we do not apply to anything else. Even if there was full agreement on the issue, something tells me that there would still be climate change deniers. Here are the facts:
According to NASA, 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is not only going on, but is also caused by humans. Nearly 200 major scientific institutions – including the American Meteorological Society, the American Medical Association and the American Association with the Advancement of Science – have concluded that climate change is not only real, but is also an ongoing problem that must be tended to.
The global warming trend that has been discussed largely attributed its results to what is known as the “greenhouse effect,” which occurs when earth’s atmosphere traps heat that would normally going out into space. Water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane are three major factors that contribute to this effect.
It should come as no surprise that humans have contributed to what is a global problem. According to the Nature Conservancy, the United States alone is responsible for 22 percent of global carbon emissions, which is staggering considering we only have five percent of the global population.
The way in which the United States and the rest of the world uses its land also contributes to the problem. Deforestation is a major factor. Changes in land use and deforestation alone account for 15 percent of total carbon emissions. And the average U.S. household uses half of its electricity to power the air conditioning and heating that Americans so desperately cling to in the summer and winter months.
But perhaps the biggest disagreement is the fact that climate change is linked to increasingly severe weather. Such weather patterns as the ones we have seen in recent months and years are no longer abnormal. Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Sandy all have to do with the climate patterns of the earth. This is no mystery and it is certainly no coincidence.
Climate change deniers such as former General Motors executive Bob Lutz have been publicly denying climate change for quite some time. Lutz is perhaps best known for saying that global warming is a “total crock of s***.” Lutz has said that abnormal weather patterns are essentially nothing new, and one natural disaster cannot be definitively linked to climate change or global warming.
That’s well and good, but singling out one hurricane or a couple months of global temperatures in the hot summer months and failing to connect that one event with climate change is like trying to attribute one pack of cigarettes to the lung cancer a smoker gets. It cannot be done. The consensus comes from years and years of scientific analysis.
Even if we continue to entertain the idea that the studies that have been conducted are not clear cut, then why can’t we all come together and do our part to save the planet and assume that global warming is real? Assumptions do not stop people from fighting what they believe in, but it seems that whenever we take one step forward on this issue, it is then another two steps back.
As it stands now, the cards are stacked against the facts of the issue. There is no amount of scientific consensus or papers that will change the minds of current climate change deniers. These people who are insistent that the scientific community is wrong are immune to facts and good advice. It is also extremely convenient for them. As they see it, they will probably die before things get to be really bad, so they do not think they have a part to play in fighting off what seems inevitable at this point.
Another part of this equation is money. Oil, natural gas and coal companies have so much money that has translated into such an immense amount of power that they have successfully been able to buy Congress as well as the airwaves. While such commercials do not directly speak to climate change or global warming per se, they talk amount what it calls “safe alternatives” like clean coal (no such thing), natural gas and nuclear energy as ways of powering the future. (I recommend you research the Fukushima Power Plant disaster if you are seriously considering nuclear energy as a safe alternative.)
According the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, only 12 percent of Americans believe global warming does not exist, which dropped by nearly half from 20 percent in 2010. I cannot wait until that number goes down to zero.
Isaac Simon is a Collegian contributor and can be reached at [email protected].
dhunt • Apr 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm
@Lynn:
So where do we find these angels, these pinnacles of virtue? Do you think scientists don’t make money off their careers? Do you think that it’s only eeeeeevil oil companies that labor to promote their own interests?
It is an axiom that research will be biased to produce research that continues the flow of grant money. As that flow swells, other people hop on the parade. A cynical example, “The Mating Habits of the Grey Squirrel” – yeah, there’s a barn-burner. But “Global Warming’s Effect on…” Yeah, baby, there’s the funding bling.
I’m surprised you didn’t say “Koch Brothers” three times in an effort to drive the skeptics away.
The PLAIN FACT of the matter is that the models and the REAL WORLD DATA do not agree. Period. End of story.
Go learn what the SCIENTIFIC PROCESS is, then come back when you can argue cogently.
Lynn Goldfarb • Apr 19, 2014 at 4:55 pm
Global warming has been established as a scientific fact since the mid-19th century ( Wikipedia). Scientists don’t sit around debating it any more than they debate the boiling point of water, the speed of light or or the fact that two and two don’t make seven. Global warming only became a topic for a phony “debate” in the world of politics and the right-wing media when it began to threaten the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Just like big tobacco in the 50’s and 60’s, which had a massive denial campaign saying smoking didn’t cause lung cancer, with fake “scientists” who questioned and cast doubt in the overwhelming scientific evidence, fossil fuels have even hired the same crooked PR firm, Heartland, and even two of the old denier ” scientists” still willing to lie for money. The tobacco corporations fooled the public for decades and millions died as a result. Climate change will kill hundreds of millions, a conservative estimate. The truth is found in peer-reviewed science journals. Last year, out of the total number of climate science papers published, 10,833, only two questioned AGW. The National Academy of Sciences says the consensus on AGW is over 97%, but then they count the shills for fossil fuels as scientists, so that accounts for the other 3%. It’s all about corporate greed.
Mark Reilly • Apr 18, 2014 at 8:14 pm
What does the American Medical Association have to do with global warming studies? They are involved in medicine – not meteorology.
You are right that there will never be a 100% agreement on the facts, but there is great consensus among the scientific community that there has been NO measurable change in climate in the past 17.5 years – almost as long as climate change was occurring.
And if climate change/global warming is as bad as some say (end of world predictions) why hasn’t the free market jumped on it to provide a remedy. Certainly anyone who can solve global warming could become a billionaire overnight. It would be the most lucrative job in the world – yet nothing from the free markets. Strange. I guess when everyone gets serious about global warming I will start to support it…
Blue Crow • Apr 18, 2014 at 12:24 am
While I have no interest in addressing your views on climate change, your comment on nuclear energy as an unsuitable solution to the ongoing climate crisis is despicable.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was built on a major fault line near an entire ocean, yet even after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and a tsunami hit Japan, not one person died due to the meltdown. In fact, the World Health Organization (WHO) even stated that the “evacuees were exposed to so little radiation that radiation-induced health impacts are likely to be below detectable levels, and that any additional cancer risk from radiation was small—extremely small, for the most part—and chiefly limited to those living closest to the Nuclear power plant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster).
And don’t you dare try to respond to this citing the Chernoybl disaster. The design and construction of that power plant had absolutely zero regulations and what regulations it did have during operation were ignored by the head plant operator. You can easily find documentaries on the hundreds of scandals and design flaws surrounding the reactor’s construction. Anything like that would never exist in today’s world, even in places like China or India where there are fairly lax regulations.
The truth is that nuclear power is the energy of tomarrow.In the future, LFTR’s, nuclear fusion plants and new types of fission plants will be everywhere. Even today, we have nuclear plants that can be entirely shut down in under thirty seconds. Nuclear power plants have been safer than they have ever been. In fact, nuclear power plants produce less radiation then coal plants, yet environmentalists never seem to point out the radiation produced by these plants and only complain about the greenhouse gases.
Also, before you respond with something along the lines of “There are other forms of energy that are better and safer,” let me say the following.
1. Solar power is incredibly inefficient due the the use of inverters that reduce efficiency in the conversion if direct current to alternating current. Not only this, but the huge capital cost of buying solar panels for public use is simply not feasible. The government has spent billions of dollars in subsidizing solar panel manufacturing companies, but these companies have always gone bankrupt since the average person can’t afford the high cost of the panels. To be able to really use solar panels, you must be very wealthy and live in a very small home that requires a low energy input.
2. Wind power, like solar power, simply has a very small power output. In order to generate sufficient energy for public use, you need an enormous amount of wind turbines. The capital cost for this is incredibly high and the land required is difficult to find. A nuclear power plant would provide much more energy and take a fraction of the space.
3. Geothermal power only works in specific regions where such power is available.
4. Hydropower only produces sufficient power in areas with large waterfalls.
5. Biomass/methane still produces CO2 in combustion, which is a greenhouse gas.
6. Hydrogen power/hydrogen fuel cells, While I admit could be effective, on a large scale, nuclear power would produce much more energy for the same cost.
All in all, nuclear power should not be feared. It is an excellent alternative to our current fuels and I wish environmentalists/liberals/leftists/Democrats were more willing to accept this simple fact. I wholeheartedly believe that we can help this planet and make Democrats and Republicans happy if we were more accepting of this energy source.
Kevin Fisher • Apr 17, 2014 at 11:38 pm
Many people find Al Gore to be insufferable. However, he is not a hypocrite. He advocates carbon neutrality and reduction which is not the same as advocating a diminished life-style. Mr. Gore drives a Prius, installed solar panels on his old house, and buys “green energy” and carbon offsets with the objective of achieving personal carbon neutrality.
The notion that dealing with AGW implies a massive life-style adjustment is intentional right wing agitprop eagerly soaked up and bounced around the blogosphere.
Steve Schmidt • Apr 17, 2014 at 12:53 am
Snappy headline. Totally wrong, unfortunately. There are still more unknowns than knowns in our study of climate and its interaction with the biosphere. I understand that people get exercised when confronted by deniers of whatever flavor, but its extremely important to keep in mind that our understanding of climate dynamics is tenuous at best.
Solution • Apr 17, 2014 at 12:43 am
This is an idiotic article because it ignores the hypocrisy of climate alarmists. Has Al Gore given up his energy sucking lifestyle? I tell you what, the quickest way to reduce 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US is for all democrats and other left leaning tree huggers to stop using cars, stop flying in planes, stop using electricity, computers, etc and to adopt the habits of the Amish. Do it, you climate alarmists… now!!!! Save the planet or live with the fact that you’re a hypocrite. If you can’t do it, then leave the rest of us alone.