Omar Lozano

ENC 1102
McGriff
2641 words
Why Are There Still Disputes About Whether Climate-Change is Human-made or Not When the
Forecast Remains the Same?
When it comes to the topic of climate-change, most of us will readily agree that planet
Earths climate is warming. Where the agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of
what has been the primary catalyst. Whereas some are convinced that it is a product of the
planets natural cycles, others maintain that the increased production of carbon emissions since
the industrial revolution serve as the primary source. My goal is to demonstrate that climatechange and global warming as we know it today is real and human-made, and what the structural
forces that are slowing us down from addressing the issue are. This will be done by presenting
quantitative and qualitative evidence that demonstrates not only that global warming is
happening but that it correlates with human-made phenomena, the repercussions that will
inevitably come to fruition if our species does not take a combative approach to the problem that
it has presented itself to be, and by detailing the impeding factor that deception, via the
culmination of politics and industry, has been to addressing it.
Climate-change is a phenomenon that does exactly what its name suggests, the climate
a more expansive version of its kin that is local and more prone to fluctuations, temperatureof
our planet slowly but steadily changes. In regards to the context in which it is used presently, it
serves as a euphemism for global warming. Global warming, as it is recognized today, is a term

used to describe the more-rapidly-than-normal acceleration of our planets climate due to

humankind. As will be discussed later and in greater detail, the mass industrial production of our
era winds up sending natural and unnatural chemicals into our atmosphere that are known as
greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are one of the many factors that makes Earth hospitable for
ourselves, through trapping some of the Suns heat that is reflected off of Earths surface. As
mentioned earlier, this also occurs naturally, but we are interrupting that natural cycle, and as
result it is estimated that [in] Earths climate system since the late 19th century . . .
[t]emperatures over land and ocean have gone up 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit),
on average. (Global Warming, Explained) This is unnatural and can have consequences for our
planet and species, as a result it must be addressed appropriately.
Whether people want to believe it or not, the planets average temperature has increased
and is increasing at a rapid pace. This is a fact that cannot be disputed, though people will try.
The more important conversation that needs to be had is whether or not our species are the main
perpetrators. What this discourse allows is a narrowing of solutions to work towards. That is, if
global warming really does have nothing to do with what we human beings contribute to natures
processes, then our course of action is to attempt to bend nature to our will so that it doesnt
become the ultimate instrument of our species undoing. On the other hand, say we do come to
the final conclusion that our hand is the ultimate one to blame. While this conclusion surely
leaves us with a guilty conscience, it makes our task that much easier since we only have to
course correct our present selves and our previous blunders.
As it turns out, our species has been the determining factor, and according to climate
scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they are 95 percent certain that
human influence has been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950. (Global Warming,

Explained) What this means is that of all the 1,300 independent members in the IPCC, an
organization considered by many to be the most prestigious source of climate research, 95%
agree with the reviewed research that comes to this conclusion. (United States) Research such as
this points to a plethora of factors, all which have been studied extensively and are then deemed
relevant to the subject at hand. One of the biggest factors was previously mentioned, and they are
known as the greenhouse gases. According to NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration)a research institute renowned for its expertise in the earth and space sciences
and its climate sector, some of the greatest contributors to the greenhouse effect are gases such
as water vapor, nitrous oxide, methane, and carbon dioxide. NASA points to certainties that
comes as a result of us pumping these gases into the atmosphere, these being the warming of the
planet, an increase in overall precipitation and evaporation, the melting of ice glaciers which will
cause the sea level to increase, and the effect on crops. These results have varying upsides and
downsides, but in the end Venus is pointed to in order to serve as a stark reminder of what a
biosphere with too many trapped greenhouse gasescarbon dioxide in this caselooks like. To
cherry pick carbon dioxide and methane out of the aforementioned gases, the American
Chemical Society (ACS)the worlds largest scientific society, and another worldwide leader in
scientific researchprovides distinct and telling information in regards to their atmospheric
concentration with relation to the globes increase in temperature since the industrial revolution.
These gases are measured in ppm (parts per million) and ppb (parts per billion), respectively.
Using bubbles of atmospheric gases trapped in ice cores bored from Antarctic ice sheets,
researchers are able to determine the levels of these gases over the past 600 millennia, and
shockingly have found that not only are these two gases currently residing in our atmosphere at
concentrations never recorded before, but that carbon dioxide has already increased by 30 ppm

within the past decade. This is a phenomenon that has never taken less than 1,000 years in the
previous 600 millennia. (What Are Greenhous Gas Changes)
Even with all of this staggering evidence, the public, other scientific minds, and other
researchers remain skeptical. Heck, even Andrew Revkin, a world renowned writer about the
worlds environment that has written for The New York Times, Issues in Science and
Technology, etc., in My Climate Change acknowledges that sifting for Nobel Laureates in
physics whod expressed strong views on global warming . . . [produced] one to suit just about
anyones argument. But it must be acknowledged that it is nave for those providing skepticism
to call for inaction altogether, especially when it comes from researchers who specialize in
contextual fields. Andrea Saltelli, et al. for example, in Climate Models as Economic Guides:
Scientific Challenge or Quixotic Quest, demonstrates that the climate models currently being
employed are nowhere near as sophisticated as we would like for them to be in order to be
advising for the policy that experts are advising as a result of them. While this may be true, as a
result of climate-changes hyper-complexity, previous historical accounts demonstrate that to be
an unwise path. In the Globe & Mail, Thomas Homer-Dixon and Andrew Weaver, respective
experts in global systems and environmental science, point out that the same rhetoric was
espoused with regards to the research looking for a tie between cancer and tobacco. The policy
proved useful, and the later and more sophisticated research backed it up.
So its happening, we as a species are the main culprit, but whats the big fuss, as they
say? The overwhelming consensus is that if the controllable factors are left unaddressed, the
natural effects of climate-change can be devastating. A key example can be brought along from
the topic of disaster planning. It can be argued that the human capital producing climate-change
models is the best resource we currently have to combat its devastating effects, but the logical

next step would be to then build the infrastructure based on those findings. But as mentioned
earlier, the results can vary due to the climates hyper complex nature. This poses as a problem
for disaster planners such as FEMA who are currently relying on old data. (Bolstad) It is already
a difficult task to prepare for natural disasters in natural disaster prone regions, but when that
status starts to have an asterisk following it, its variable nature poses problems for its municipal
leaders. This is a prime example for why research cannot be deterred. More funds put into
research leads to an increased sophistication in the models produced, which then can be better
translated to communities that need to prepare for the future by building infrastructure, a costly
endeavor.
Of course, when we as a nation disproportionately contribute to the rapid rise of our
planets climate, youd expect for us to also be able to use those same industrial forces to shield
us from its effects (Gonzalez). On the other hand, vast regions of the world such as those in Latin
America, Asia, Africa, etc. are in the weakest economic positions in this day and age, and are
prone to suffer the most in their own unique circumstances by the end of the century. Western
societies such as the United States of America must take on adaptive measures with their
infrastructuresuch as becoming more energy efficient, cutting back on disforestation, or other
measures to ensure a decrease in atmospheric carbon concentrationalongside the defensive
measures. This is a method of ensuring that undeveloped countries arent as prone to disasters
such as droughts, floods, thunderstorms, etc. which, according to the World Economic Forum
(WEF), work as threat multipliers due to the tensions that arise as these disasters gouge
agriculture.
Livestock also runs the risk of being gouged. According to the Scientific Committee of
Oceanic Research (SCOR) Since the Industrial Revolution, the oceans have become 30 percent

more acidic. (Global Warming, Explained) What this means is as the oceans pH levels continue
to drop, the worlds coral reefs will be more prone to erosion and eventually their demise. Our
food supply could also be drastically interfered with, for example [o]ne study in the journal
Climactic Change estimated that the loss of mollusks alone could cost the world as much as $100
billion per year by the end of the century. (Global Warming, Explained) As Americans we are
already all too familiar with what these results look like when one takes a gander back to the
repercussions of the environmental disaster that New Orleans faced when BPs oil spilled in the
gulf. This is something that other communities should not have to endure, especially as a result
of our own mistakes.
Marco Evers, Geral Traufetter, and Olaf Stampf at the German paper Spiegel think
otherwise of course. While speaking with other climatologists who make up the IPCC, The
Negative Impact of Climate Change is Overstated paints a picture of hyperbole cultivated by a
culture of mass hysteria and tunnel visions at the IPCC. This is, of course, to be expected.
Every phenomenon has its skeptics and detractors, even from within. As a matter of fact, this is
already known seeing as 95%, not 100%, of the IPCC were in accord with the studies regarding
human responsibility in planet Earths warming. And while the assessment of The Reality of
Rising Sea Levels, that Spiegel metions, may be correct when addressing how climate-change
wont be as impactful in cities such as Hong Kong and London, it doesnt take away from the
fact that many other parts of the world stand to lose due to these industrialized cities
carelessness, nor does it take away from the overwhelming consensus of the rest of the scientific
community in regards to global warming.
Lastly, to ensure speedier action towards undoing global warming, deceptive industries
and politicians that are using misdirection with regards to the dialog surrounding climate-change

must be taken to task. After decades of extensive calls to action for the petroleum industry to be
put against the same standards as the tobacco industry, new research by the Center for
International Environmental Law (CIEL) has been found suggesting overlap between the two
since the 1950s. From the 1950s and onward, the oil and tobacco firms were using not only the
same PR firms and same research institutes, but many of the same researchers. (Hulac, Tobacco
and Oil) The research is building a case towards answering the question about whether oil
companies have misled the public about global warming, just as the tobacco industry was
misleading about smoking and cancers connection. This is indicative of the tenacity that private
corporations have when it comes to ensuring a profit, even when theyre putting future
generations livelihoods at stake. Executive for companies would continue to brush aside their
effect on the global climate as later as 1996. (Hulac, Tobacco and Oil)
It isnt always on purpose though. When the ozone layer was more cause for concern
over the greenhouse gases trapping heat, there was an easy alternative due to the economics
revolving around the situation. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were used as an alternative
refrigerant to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) which were severely damaging the ozone
layer. But as indicated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the result was that the
greenhouse effect was multiplied due to HFCs being 10,000 times more effective than carbon
dioxide at trapping heat. (Overview of Greenhouse Gases) When one things about the
industrialized growth of China and especially India, it becomes evident that this can be
exacerbated if air conditioning units become more popular over there, due to how cheap these
refrigerants make them. And thats the crux of this deception problem: money. Coal industries
want to continue to make a hefty profit, and so they lobby for politicians who are going to
minimize the perception of fossil fuels and their role in our planets increasing climate. Luckily

the WEF has ranked climate-change as the worlds top economic risk as of 2016. (Hulac, Top
Economic Risk) This comes as a natural evolution through its course of continuously being
marked as a top 5 economic threat since 2011. As the economic incentive to back away from
fossil fuels continues, banks such as Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and other will steadily
take part in these cuts on fossil fuel projects. (Hulac, Banks Claim) Hopefully the economic
pulse behind fossil fuel projects will continue to dwindle as they set new environmental and
social policies. But the government plays a big role in this as well. By subsidizing manufacturing
and research to help combat climate-change, corporations have the economic incentive needed.
Just take a look at Tesla. This is step that can be taken to prevent corporations to lobby for the
wrong cause, and thus fill voters heads with meaningless rhetoric that only serves a companys
selfish desire at the expense of those who also have to inhabit the world, but without their
economic luxuries.
So take a deep breath, because theres a lot of work to be done. Surely the oncoming
generations will be more well-equipped with knowledge when it comes to taking the
responsibility of electing officials to represent the need for future generations and for our planet,
cause its the only one we have. Theyll do this by understanding that the planet most definitely
is warming, and their previous generations are those to blame. But you and the rest of this
current generation wont fall into that category, because this generation will understand that
human-kind is at fault, and through humble initiative itll take the steps necessary to help remedy
those actions. If not there are drastic repercussions for this generation, and many to come,
devastating repercussions that can alter human geography as we know it. The internet is a vast
resource, and with the learning of some key analytic techniques one can navigate through its

information to disseminate that which is truly valuable, and thus uncover research that isnt used
to be deceptive but informative. And thats how a better climate will be insure for tomorrow.

Works Cited

Bolstad, Erika. U.S. Needs Smarter Disaster Planning. Scientific American. Nature America,
29 June. 2016. Web. July 23. 2016.

Evers, Marco, Gerald Traufetter, and Olaf Stampf. "The Negative Impact of Climate Change Is
Overstated." Adaptation and Climate Change. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. from "A Superstorm for Global Warming Research.
www.spiegel.de. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 July. 2016.

Global Warming, Explained. Vox. Vox Media, Inc., n.d. Web. 3 Aug. 2016.

Gonzalez, Patrick. Climate Change Could Be Devastating and People Must Adapt to
Survive. Adaptation and Climate Change. Ed. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2013. At Issue. Rpt. From A World Vulnerable to Climate
Change. WorldView. Vol. 6. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 07 July. 2016.

Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Andrew Weaver. "Uncertainty shouldn't mean inaction." Globe &
Mail [Toronto, Canada] 7 Oct. 2013: A11. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 July
2016.

Hulac, Benjamin. Banks Claim They Will Back Away from Fossil Fuels. Scientific American.
Nature America, 15 June. 2016. Web. 23 July. 2016.
---. Tobacco and Oil Industries Used Same Researchers to Sway Public. Scientific American.
Nature America, 20 July. 2016. Web. 23 July. 2016.
---. Top Economic Risk of 2016 Is Global Warming. Scientific American. Nature America, 15
January. 2016. Web. 23 July. 2016.

Overview of Greenhouse Gases. EPA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 3
Aug. 2016.

Revkin, Andrew C. "My Climate Change: Decades of Reporting on Climate Science and The
Climate Policy Debate Have Led Me Through a Long Evolution in My Thinking, and I

Hope to a Little Practical Wisdom." Issues in Science and Technology 32.2 (2016):
27+.Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 23 July. 2016.

Saltelli, Andrea, et al. "Climate Models as Economic Guides: Scientific Challenge or Quixotic
Quest?" Issues in Science and Technology 31.3 (2015): 79+. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 18 July. 2016.

United States. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Climate.NASA. Earth Science
Communications Team at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 3 Aug. 2016. Web. 30 Aug.
2016.

What Are the Greenhouse Gas Changes Since the Industrial Revolution? American Chemical
Society. American Chemical Society, n.d. Web. 3 Aug. 2016.