Alex Pedersen
Recently in my Introduction to Chemistry class, we learned the finer points of how global warming happens – how carbon dioxide breaks the natural cycle of free radicals in the atmosphere and how carbon dioxide itself is trapping heat. In fact, the third chapter of our book is titled, “The Chemistry of Global Warming.”
But it blew my mind when my father laughed at me for believing in global warming, as if I were talking about Santa Claus. My mind continued to be blown to find that some of my own peers at this school feel the same way.
The truth is that global warming is a phenomenon that is killing the Earth as we know it and it is the fault of humans. If you disagree, look at some scientific evidence and you will see what scientists have been seeing for years: it is no fairy tale.
Before a couple of years ago, not very many people had much of a grasp as to what global warming is. It wasn’t until “An Inconvenient Truth” that the issue was thrust into the public eye. Unfortunately, because it was a movie by Al Gore, the ecological issue instantly became a political one.
Dissenters of all things liberal (which includes all things Gore) immediately saw it as paranoia and saw Gore himself as simply searching for limelight. Whether or not Gore was looking for fame, the issue that he brought up is still very poignant.
It’s a fairly simple concept: humans have put things into the air that are not supposed to be there – mostly carbon dioxide from engines and methane from livestock – and those additives are trapping the sun’s heat.
From 1860 to 2000, Earth has experienced its greatest raise in temperature and carbon dioxide concentration in 130,000 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.
However, it was a multitude of volcanoes that produced carbon dioxide 130,000 years ago and they stopped, allowing the carbon dioxide to deplete its lifetime. Now, we have gotten to the same level of heat and carbon dioxide and we show no sign of slowing down.
Many people who think that global warming does not exist believe that the increased global temperature is simply part of a natural cycle, and that may be a factor, but it is undeniable that the level of carbon dioxide has risen dramatically since the industrial revolution and, according to my chemistry book, carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping gas. It’s not hard to combine these two factors.
Many of these nay-sayers are also the people who refer to global warming as “climate change,” a term coined by Frank Luntz, public relations puppeteer of conservatives, to make the issue seem less frightening.
“The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science,” Luntz wrote in a memo to President Bush, obtained by the Environmental Working Group. “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”
Unfortunately, he was listened to and some people believed it. Fortunately, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comprised of scientists from around the world, also put out their findings. They stated that they are 90 to 99 percent certain that, “human-caused emissions are the main factor in causing warming since 1950,” and they are one to 10 percent certain that, “the observed warming over the past 100 years is due to climate variability alone,” according to the IPCC.
Of course, if you don’t believe me, I urge you to do research in scientific fields and decide for yourself. The fact is that global warming is real and is a man-made problem. We must do all in our power, as individuals and human beings as a whole, to stem the problem before it gets any worse.
Mother Nature gave us life and she can take it away just as easily.
Loading ...
You know, while “global climate change” is sort of a conservative phrase to make it seem less scary, it’s also slightly more accurate. The warming caused by the carbon not only causes an increase in temperature, but more varied and extreme weather (re: Hurricane Katrina or the 100+ tornadoes in Kansas last summer). A lot of people point to how cool summers have been or how cold the winters are, but it’s pushing things to extremes that we’re doing. Silliness.
mr. pederson:
i hope that during your time at emporia state, you learn additional skills at critical thinking.
i urge you to consider a few things:
1. God created our earth, not mother nature, and he expects us to use our gray matter to the greatest possible extent and to constantly question in the search for universal truth.
2. do you know the actual percentage of co2 in the atmosphere? it is .003 percent…that is .00003 when represented as a decimal. do you know what the percentage of water vapor is? it is greater than co2. why is there not a push to reduce water vapor in the atmosphere? i will submit a suggestion to you: it is because it is tough to tax and trade “clouds”. i also suggest you take biology class where you would learn that without co2 in our atmosphere, all plant life would die and the production of o2 would necessarily decrease, potentially causing havoc on those beings that breathe o2, namely: us.
3. i would be interested, should you decide to fulfill your journalistic duty, to know who stands to profit from any of these “climate rescue” policies that are being proposed currently…you could start by looking into the ccx (carbon credit exchange) that would be the backbone of the cap and trade/tax racket…i think you would be not so suprised to find one algore at the root of it and who stands to make billions of dollars…
it angers me to see more disingenuous people taking advantage of younger peoples naivete on this issue, when it will be just those same young people who will be most penalized during the course of their life.
do not dismiss your elder’s disbelief of global warming, they know a sham when they see it, and we are fighting this fight for our children, and our children’s children…
constantly question yourself, but when you are proved wrong, be mature enough to let your personality evolve and grow to the next stage of your development.
Dear mr. Alumnus,
I hope that during your remaining time on earth you learn common sense, science, what a fact is and how to think for yourself. You obviously are repeating “facts” that have been spewed forth from fox news and chain e-mails to bored housewives. Now I understand its hard to realize that you clearly have not the faintest idea what your talking about, but you must try, its just common courtesy. It angers me the most to see older people who lived through great changes in this country be fooled by those claiming to be “god fearing.” Christianity is sold whole sell in this country now a days and any ignorant racist quack can say complete lies but so long as they claim its in the name of god its alright. No sir you are the worst kind of fool, not content to keep your ignorance to yourself you feel you must spread your empty mindedness and hate to the masses (Quite the opposite of what christ did frankly.) In closing sir do not be afraid of change or the new generation for surely you realize your beliefs in all ways are on the way out to obscurity. Please allow yourself to be mature enough to realize your whole life has been a lie.
Dr. Hypocrite,
Isn’t questioning the status quo part of open-mindedness and general inquiry? Way to show your intolerance by berating someone with a contrary opinion to yours!
As usual, hypocrites will only extend tolerance to those who agree with them (quite the opposite of what Christ did frankly).
Yes, the christians have always been the most open minded of all, a hearty chuckle indeed. Now the problem of course isn’t christianity the problem is the current intertwined duo of the “republican” party and modern “christianity.” These two are facsimiles of thier true meanings and have come to quite literally represent fear, hate and misinformation. The problem is people like you and the person above
who believe whole heartedly the teachings of the limbaughs and the becks yet could never be bothered to check and see if what they’re saying has even a modicum of truth in it. Where modern christianity comes in is the crutch of people who believe that the republican party is the only way for god fearing folk and that while they say “no” to big government they say yes to getting rid of gay marriage, abortion, sex education and the like. Open minded? Please.
Did you even read what was written?
I don’t have a religion/politics issue with your statements. My issue is your lack of tolerance for dissenting views.
I know I’m diverging off the topic of this column, but…
I’ve noticed a common argument from critics of the left is that if liberals are so open-minded, why don’t they get along with the people on the right? Why are they so resistant to different points of view, when they claim to be tolerant?
I think, in large part, this stems from the left believing they’re dealing with fact. It is a fact that there is global warming, it is a fact that gay people love each other as much as straight people, it is a fact that evolution created humans as we are. When you believe something to be rooted in evidence and to be not a matter of faith but a matter of fact, it’s harder to accept other points of view. Left leaners tend to think that conservatives are blind to fact, and if they’d just stop looking at the Bible or listening to their preacher they’d see the truth. Not that this is a bad thing.
The other reason I think liberals want to get people to think like them is that the people who don’t think like them want to restrict. What I mean by this is that while most liberals, I think, would like a diverse world where everyone is free to do what they want, believe what they want, and not infringe on others right to do the same, most conservatives do not think that way. Conservatives want to ban same sex marriage, teach creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom, and put Christian thoughts into classrooms and courtrooms. It’s easy to forget that freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, and by imposing one religion on everyone, you’re stopping others from being free to practice what they believe. Therefore, the road block is that liberals really do want openmindedness and freedom and tolerance, but they see it as that conservatives don’t, making them free and open to everything but things that aren’t free and open. Does that make sense?
I understand that it may appear hypocritical for a liberal to scoff at certain conservative behaviors… it’s really just a Catch-22, a vicious cycle, and this argument should simply be thrown out. I, as a liberal, believe in tolerance and diversity, but not at the expense of others. I think that’s what it boils down to. You’re absolutely free to not believe in global warming or to be a devout creationist, but don’t restrict others’ right to believe otherwise.
If that made any sense at all.
I always find it funny when people hold up “science” like it is a pure undefiled, unbiased source of all that is right. One problem: scientists. Scientists, like all humans, ARE biased. If a set of results do match what scientists wants them to say, he can discard them. He can change them. There’s a great example from one of the greatest minds our world has probably known: Albert Einstein. When he was working on his theory of General and Special Relativity he noticed that his model had the universe expanding. Well, he didn’t like this. It was common “scientific” knowledge at the time that the universe had been static for eternity (which also was a good way to sidestep the First Cause argument). So he threw in some equations (the famed “cosmological constant”) to nullify what his equations told him. Of course about a dozen or so years Edwin Hubble showed him cosmological proof of its expansion and the great Einstein fixed his equation.
That, along with the half dozen or so times our understanding of chemistry, physics, biology, geology et al should make all “open minded” & scientific people leery of using absolute terms when referring to “scientific” things. There has already been a debacle similar to Einstein’s inclusion of the “cosmological constant” into the “hockey stick” graph used by the environmentalists. We also have the problem of the majority of global warming models NOT including THE cause for global warming: the sun. How can you have any type of model that doesn’t take into account sun spots and solar flares? We have seen the ice caps on Mars shrink too, & there are no coal power plants or industrial farming there.
Climate change science is full of unknowns, unknowable’s & personal interpretation of results that it should not be knee jerk reacted upon.
Here’s hoping common sense & logic win the day over global warming hysteria the self hate many humans have.
“dr. jeffrey scott cook, jr.”:
in your defense of the “scientific method”, you have failed to confront my argument of facts and figures with any facts and figures of your own. you respond in typcial uneducated liberal/progressive fashion using ad hominem attacks.
you, “sir”, need to address the facts, not feelings or “we are the new and improved generation” as support for your “feelings”.
the fact is: the world has warmed and cooled ad infinitum without the influence of man, but rather from the influence of our closest star: the sun, as well as the natural tilt and rotation of the earth on our axis. the mayans even understood this, “dr.”!
please use your critical thinking abilities and research some of this data and don’t just spew forth homilies and platitudes which make you appear as a shill for the new religion of global warming.
think and reason based on universal facts, do not be a robot to the old school progressive masters looking to indoctrinate a new generation of useful idiots…