Global Warming may not be the main threat to humanity as we know it and humans may or may not be the cause. The main threat that is one hundred percent human-caused is the largely unacknowledged modern world’s wasteful activities that are not only harming the environment, but life on earth for animals and humans alike.
This paper will serve the purpose of debunking mainstream Global Warming zealots, and presenting the real issues we should be focusing on.
I will be presenting a slightly controversial view of Global Warming. I never really bought into it initially, because I didn't have enough information, so I didn't have an opinion yay or nay... however, after looking into certain things, my view is coming to a focus point: there are too many fallacies being presented, that any truth within is being obscured and pushed to the side. Environmentalism has become a religion that millions have bought into. Most have no idea what it is they stand for, just like in mainstream Christianity. The majority have the best intentions in the world and really want to help. I just wish their efforts and donations were aimed at something that could actually make a difference to living people suffering in the world instead of being misplaced.
Concerning the science of GloWarm, I have personally spoken to an Astro-Biologist, who quite frankly, has forgotten more about the different elements that make up this world than I will ever hope to know. He doesn't take something at face value because someone said it is so - he researches a topic to death, and then makes an informed decision. He understands the initial research done that was the forerunner of the GloWarm issue, and he has contacts around the world who are constantly sharing research back and forth. He was the first person who presented a logical, non-biased look at this issue. He loves facts, and he had hard research to back up his claims. (I'm currently in contact with him to try and get some of those statistics... he's a prof, so he's also really busy with his own research and classes. Thank heavens I'm "in" with his wife so she keeps reminding him.)
Through my own research I found that there are quite a few studies, and quite a few scientists from different fields who have conducted studies that also differ from Al Gore's religion of GloWarm. One set of scientists, for instance says that while they don't dispute the fact that the earth is warming, they don't believe humans have anything to do with the temperature rise, nor do they think that a rise in temperature would be so terrible in certain cases. They however, in antipode to the GloWarm enthusiasts, don't claim to have all the answers. Al Gore, (not a scientist), and environmental activists, (many of whom are also not trained scientists), have emphatically stated that the debate is over concerning the issues pertaining to the causes of GloWarm, and what needs to be done to fix it. This is simply not true, and many scientists refuse to be bulldozed by politicians and activists.
Concerning the science of GloWarm, I have personally spoken to an Astro-Biologist, who quite frankly, has forgotten more about the different elements that make up this world than I will ever hope to know. He doesn't take something at face value because someone said it is so - he researches a topic to death, and then makes an informed decision. He understands the initial research done that was the forerunner of the GloWarm issue, and he has contacts around the world who are constantly sharing research back and forth. He was the first person who presented a logical, non-biased look at this issue. He loves facts, and he had hard research to back up his claims. (I'm currently in contact with him to try and get some of those statistics... he's a prof, so he's also really busy with his own research and classes. Thank heavens I'm "in" with his wife so she keeps reminding him.)
Through my own research I found that there are quite a few studies, and quite a few scientists from different fields who have conducted studies that also differ from Al Gore's religion of GloWarm. One set of scientists, for instance says that while they don't dispute the fact that the earth is warming, they don't believe humans have anything to do with the temperature rise, nor do they think that a rise in temperature would be so terrible in certain cases. They however, in antipode to the GloWarm enthusiasts, don't claim to have all the answers. Al Gore, (not a scientist), and environmental activists, (many of whom are also not trained scientists), have emphatically stated that the debate is over concerning the issues pertaining to the causes of GloWarm, and what needs to be done to fix it. This is simply not true, and many scientists refuse to be bulldozed by politicians and activists.
As seen in this class, humans are causing many problems to the environment, and we will eventually run out of oil, so changes need to be made. If they can be environmentally friendly, all the better. I believe we should protect the world we live in, and its inhabitants. The people in India, China and other developing countries are being directly affected by things humans are doing. I feel that the whole GloWarm debate is taking away from the real issues facing the citizens of the world. People in Africa are starving - yet crazy environmentalists decided that they needed thousand dollar solar panels so they could have 'clean energy'.... they can't afford FOOD... what are they going to do with electricity they can't use? To me, this is a real world example of the larger issues that are being shoved to the side so that GloWarm proponents can get their name in the paper.
For some reason I wasn't able to login to Ebsco from my computer, and I haven't been into the library recently, so my sources so far are online sources... At this stage, if I use more than 3 of these sources in my paper, it will be as a springboard to other more traditional resources, or to provide examples about what the general public is saying.
The first group contains slightly more credible sites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&feature=related
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html
http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2006/02/fallacy_of_glob.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/SPPI_AGW_fallacies.pdf
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/21/prominent-philosopher-commits-global-warming-fallacy/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&feature=related
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html
http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2006/02/fallacy_of_glob.html
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/SPPI_AGW_fallacies.pdf
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/01/21/prominent-philosopher-commits-global-warming-fallacy/
The second group, if I use any of these at all, will be to show examples from the general public... in all honesty, if I use anything from these, I will be surprised. I always research a lot more sites/sources than I need, then whittle it down from a long list to the pertinent quotable ones.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/33680/global_warming_or_solar_warming.html?cat=58
http://www.i2i.org/main/author.php?author_id=84
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/globalwarming.htm
http://www.robill.com/GlobalWarmingDVDFrameset.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/290441/an_inconvenient_fallacy_why_scientists.html?cat=58
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/33680/global_warming_or_solar_warming.html?cat=58
http://www.i2i.org/main/author.php?author_id=84
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/globalwarming.htm
http://www.robill.com/GlobalWarmingDVDFrameset.htm
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/290441/an_inconvenient_fallacy_why_scientists.html?cat=58
No comments:
Post a Comment