The problem is that the theory of global warming, while widely accepted by many reputable scientists, has never been conclusively proven. That's because predictions of warming depend largely on sophisticated atmospheric computer models, models which other equally respected scientists don't trust. Scientists on both sides accuse the others of being biased: scientists who argue against climate change are accused of being on the payroll of big business, especially oil companies, while scientists who are concerned about climate warming are accused of being on the payroll of environmental advocacy groups. The truth is, though, it's common for different scientists to disagree over how to interpret data, and it's also easy for scientists to be somewhat biased whether they think they are or not.
Global warming "believers" point to increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, and to recent dramatic weather trends. Carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas, that is, its presence in the atmosphere serves to warm the Earth's surface. Greenhouse gases like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane have always been around, and are necessary if we want Earth to be warm enough to support life. But levels of some greenhouse gases appear to have increased measureably since the Industrial Revolution, when society began burning large amounts of fossil fuels.
Global warming "skeptics" argue that the data is inconclusive. They maintain that it hasn't been conclusively shown that long-term, permanent warming is truly happening, and remind us that during the cold snap of the 70s, climate scientists feared we were entering a new Ice Age. If warming is happening, it hasn't been shown conclusively that it's anthropogenic in nature, that is, that it's caused by man's activities rather than a continuation of the natural warming trend we have been in since the last Ice Age. If it is anthropogenic, it hasn't been proven that the disadvantages, such as rising ocean levels, outweigh the advantages, such as increased plant growth.
It's prudent to be conservative in our use of fossil fuels, which are nonrenewable over the lifespan of a human; on the other hand, the Kyoto Protocol and other proposed regulations are dramatic measures which may have significant economic impacts to industrialized countries while exempting non-industrialized countries. That's why it's important that everyone become educated about both sides of the issue, draw an informed conclusion, and vigorously support their side of the issue.
Go To Page: 1
