By Fonju Ndemesah
Despite the bulk of evidence produced by institutions such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to portray the importance to take immediate action to curb human activities that cause global warming and climate change, many thinkers, observers, and scholars, still sustain that the whole issue of global warming is a myth because it is based on refutable arguments. They contend that climate change is a problem created to raise unnecessary alarmism, and that it appears to be a problem solely in the eyes of the beholder. Let’s see what both sides put forward.
The reality thesis
Those scholars and observers who see the growing global warming as a threat to the livelihood of humanity base their argument on the fact that humanity has at its disposal a limited resource called the “environment utilization space”. According to the supporters of this thesis, the “human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes . This evidence for human influence has grown since. It is likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[i] Furthermore, because of human activities, “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years”[1]. Because of the foregoing, supporters of this thesis believe in the importance to take action if humankind wishes to remain as specie on the planet earth.
The myth thesis
On the other hand, thinkers sustaining that the entire issue of global warming is empty noise are many; they point on various aspects to discredit and undermine the climate change debate. Some, for example, argue that the whole issue of global warming aims at creating fear that will help some superpowers and international nongovernmental organizations (INGO) to push and implement policies which would have otherwise been impossible. They also sustain that “the IPCC reports do not give attention to the cooling effects of various anthropogenic emissions and the complex feedback loop; and the models are merely speculations about the future which tend to minimize the uncertainties involved”.[ii]
Morano (2008) posits that “the models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity”. James divine in an article in Global Research argues that from the climate change debate, “it is evident that the intentional manipulation of a scientific subject can be designed to both generate a public reaction, as well as to benefit private interests”. He, for example, cites the US Vice President, Al Gore, a major supporter of the theory of anthropogenic climate change; he says Al Gore also happens to be a major benefactor.”[iii] For him, the whole issue of anthropogenic change can be regarded as a “case of intellectual manipulation”[iv]
James Divine goes further to explain that the present debate pushed by a “form of group mentality”, which he explains as “When robbed of the proper utilization of the reasoning faculty, a person surrenders to a set of prevailing assumptions”, which in this case are reinforced by the rhetorical mechanisms operating in that society. “In fact, people can be so attached to ‘consensus reality’ that its assumptions and predictions override contradictory evidence. When speakers encounter a situation in which people or events do not fit the categories provided by their model of reality, they are more likely to describe those people or event to make them “fit” the model rather than change or revise the model itself” (Penelope 1990, pg 37). What this means is that even when a circumstance arises which exposes that person to an alternative perspective on reality, no matter how grounded in evidentiary logic, that individual will instinctively re-frame or reject that knowledge”.[v] To conclude, James Divine, quoting few scholars with a critical view on climate change and global warming, argues that most of the supporters of anthropogenic change are biased and are flawing in various points, which he finds in:
The controversy, debate, dialogue, dialectics, call it as you wish, on climate change and global warming has gain momentum in the recent decades because of the impossibility of humankind to master the actions and reactions of the environment. Disasters are in crescendo years after years. But, are these disasters caused by anthropogenic activities or are natural phenomena that nature does not need any human action to adjust it? Only time will give us an answer from the growing debate. For now, what I believe and know is that we have only one world that we have to use intelligently so as to make our livelihood interesting, and also to preserve a better environment for the future generation. Only a lunatic will cut the branch of a tree on which he/she is sitting.
Sources
[i] IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[ii] Ibid
[iii] James Divine. Global Warming and the Ideology of Anthropogenic (Human Caused) Climate Change, Global Research, November 08, 2013, accessed on 12/19/2013. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-and-the-ideology-of-anthropogenic-human-caused-climate-change/5357415
[iv] Ibid
[v] Ibid
[vi] [vi] Ibid
Despite the bulk of evidence produced by institutions such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to portray the importance to take immediate action to curb human activities that cause global warming and climate change, many thinkers, observers, and scholars, still sustain that the whole issue of global warming is a myth because it is based on refutable arguments. They contend that climate change is a problem created to raise unnecessary alarmism, and that it appears to be a problem solely in the eyes of the beholder. Let’s see what both sides put forward.
The reality thesis
Those scholars and observers who see the growing global warming as a threat to the livelihood of humanity base their argument on the fact that humanity has at its disposal a limited resource called the “environment utilization space”. According to the supporters of this thesis, the “human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes . This evidence for human influence has grown since. It is likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century".[i] Furthermore, because of human activities, “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850. In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years”[1]. Because of the foregoing, supporters of this thesis believe in the importance to take action if humankind wishes to remain as specie on the planet earth.
The myth thesis
On the other hand, thinkers sustaining that the entire issue of global warming is empty noise are many; they point on various aspects to discredit and undermine the climate change debate. Some, for example, argue that the whole issue of global warming aims at creating fear that will help some superpowers and international nongovernmental organizations (INGO) to push and implement policies which would have otherwise been impossible. They also sustain that “the IPCC reports do not give attention to the cooling effects of various anthropogenic emissions and the complex feedback loop; and the models are merely speculations about the future which tend to minimize the uncertainties involved”.[ii]
Morano (2008) posits that “the models and forecasts of the UN IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity”. James divine in an article in Global Research argues that from the climate change debate, “it is evident that the intentional manipulation of a scientific subject can be designed to both generate a public reaction, as well as to benefit private interests”. He, for example, cites the US Vice President, Al Gore, a major supporter of the theory of anthropogenic climate change; he says Al Gore also happens to be a major benefactor.”[iii] For him, the whole issue of anthropogenic change can be regarded as a “case of intellectual manipulation”[iv]
James Divine goes further to explain that the present debate pushed by a “form of group mentality”, which he explains as “When robbed of the proper utilization of the reasoning faculty, a person surrenders to a set of prevailing assumptions”, which in this case are reinforced by the rhetorical mechanisms operating in that society. “In fact, people can be so attached to ‘consensus reality’ that its assumptions and predictions override contradictory evidence. When speakers encounter a situation in which people or events do not fit the categories provided by their model of reality, they are more likely to describe those people or event to make them “fit” the model rather than change or revise the model itself” (Penelope 1990, pg 37). What this means is that even when a circumstance arises which exposes that person to an alternative perspective on reality, no matter how grounded in evidentiary logic, that individual will instinctively re-frame or reject that knowledge”.[v] To conclude, James Divine, quoting few scholars with a critical view on climate change and global warming, argues that most of the supporters of anthropogenic change are biased and are flawing in various points, which he finds in:
- “The statistical manipulation and censorship of data by leading anthropogenic climate scientists [Phil Jones, Michael Mann],
- the intrinsic bias towards anthropogenic causal forces inherent in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast models [Herrera, detailing omission of solar activity]
- the admission of systemic uncertainties inherent in climate forecast methodologies [UK National Weather Service],
- the widespread unknown variables identified by NASA [solar irradiance, aerosols/dust/smoke, clouds, the carbon cycle, ocean circulation, precipitation and sea level rise],
- the corporate, industrial and banking interests behind major proponents of anthropogenic climate change [Barclays, BP, Endesa, Fortis, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley et al], and the calculated ideological premise that human beings are the source of all environmental problems and thus an enemy to humanity itself [Club of Rome]. Subsequently, the consequences of this prevailing worldview must be addressed.”[vi]
The controversy, debate, dialogue, dialectics, call it as you wish, on climate change and global warming has gain momentum in the recent decades because of the impossibility of humankind to master the actions and reactions of the environment. Disasters are in crescendo years after years. But, are these disasters caused by anthropogenic activities or are natural phenomena that nature does not need any human action to adjust it? Only time will give us an answer from the growing debate. For now, what I believe and know is that we have only one world that we have to use intelligently so as to make our livelihood interesting, and also to preserve a better environment for the future generation. Only a lunatic will cut the branch of a tree on which he/she is sitting.
Sources
[i] IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[ii] Ibid
[iii] James Divine. Global Warming and the Ideology of Anthropogenic (Human Caused) Climate Change, Global Research, November 08, 2013, accessed on 12/19/2013. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-and-the-ideology-of-anthropogenic-human-caused-climate-change/5357415
[iv] Ibid
[v] Ibid
[vi] [vi] Ibid