Is Human-induced Global Warming an Imminent Threat?

Since 1896, we have known that the buildup of certain gases in our atmosphere-carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.-create a "greenhouse effect" by blocking some of earth's infrared radiation from escaping into space (Encarta 1). Recently, a view held by a fraction of scientists that human-produced increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases could result in a catastrophic disaster known as "global warming" has been forced down the throats of millions of Americans. Select groups of scientists direly predict that global warming could alter the earth's climate significantly and cause problems such as higher sea levels or increased frequency of major storms. However, the view held by a majority of scientists is that the doom-and-gloom global warming hypothesis is backed up with little evidence (in fact, there is evidence that shows slight cooling trends) and that human-induced emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide pose little or no immediate threat to the well being of the planet earth or its inhabitants.

While the validity of the global warming hypothesis is a matter of fierce debate in the scientific community, it is a fairly well established scientific fact that the "greenhouse effect" does, indeed, take place. This notion has been amply tested, and the results of such tests seem to conclusively show that greenhouse gases warm the earth (in fact, the earth would likely be rendered uninhabitable without the warming it induces) (Schneider 13). Global warming theory proposes that an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can engender drastic climatic changes, causing a myriad of catastrophic difficulties, such as rising sea levels (Union 1). Despite the opinions of many scientists that global warming has yet to be proven, it has become an ubiquitous scapegoat blamed for innumerable problems. For example, former Vice President Al Gore once made the following comment regarding federal assistance to fight wildfires: "These fires offer a glimpse of what global warming may mean to families across America . . . And that is why it is so critical that we get on with the job of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions (Adler 1)." Obviously, Al Gore is not a climatologist, yet he, like many others in the era of alleged global warming, sees himself fit to disregard concerns among the scientific community regarding the accuracy of the global warming hypothesis and chooses to pronounce it a critical and deplorable problem.

It is believed by many that a consensus of scientists agree that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions are causing abnormal global warming-on the web site for the "Union of Concerned Scientists," it is stated that the "vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real (Union 1)." Putting aside the fact that this statement is misleading, because all scientists agree that climate change exists-it is the role of human-produced emissions that is questioned-this statement is easily contested by the mere fact that the "Ozone Action" petition, which depicted global warming as a dire and almost certain threat, was signed by 2,600 scientists, while a counter petition was signed by over 18,000 scientists (Adler 2). Of course, simply garnering signatures on a petition is no proof for or against global warming, but it makes it abundantly clear that there is no "consensus" within the scientific community that global warming is human-induced or a dire threat.

It would be reasonable to ask "if the possibility exists that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions could be worsening global warming, why not take measures to decrease them? What would it hurt?" The answer to that question lies in the costs of emission-reducing programs such as the now largely inactive Kyoto Protocol. Studies by Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, Charles Rivers Associates, and other groups have found that the Kyoto Protocol would cost more than $2000 per household, gasoline costs would raise by 50 cents per gallon, and home heating costs could rise by as much as 70 percent (Adler 1). Per year, the Kyoto Protocol would cost an estimated $350 billion beginning in 2010, and $900 billion per year beginning in 2050-projections don't show global warming costing that much until 2100! (Nonsense 1) What do we gain from this gargantuan price-tag? A measly estimated decrease of .07 degrees Celsius by 2050 (Michaels 12). What's more, the Kyoto Protocol doesn't take into consideration factors that decrease global warming (Bailey 2), such as the United State's abundant forests-thereby placing increased restrictions on the U.S., while developing nations such as China-which partakes in rampant deforestation-are not required to decrease any emissions (Bailey 3).

An article by Jeff Nesmith was recently published that was an obvious attempt at discrediting concerns over the global warming theory. "Non-profit organizations with ties to energy interests are promoting a controversial new study as proof that prevailing views of global warming are wrong (Nesmith 1)," the article begins. It is clear from the outset that this is a biased piece of work that should have gone straight to the editorial pages; however, the opinion piece disguised as impartial reporting goes on to quote a former Boston Globe reporter: "The contradictory statements of a tiny handful of discredited scientists, funded by big coal and big oil, represents a deliberate - and extremely reckless - campaign of deception and disinformation (Nesmith 3)." Firstly, nowhere in the article is there any evidence that opponents of the notion of apocalyptic global warming are "discredited." Secondly, the mere fact that a portion of this group's research was funded by the American Petroleum Institute does not necessarily invalidate the scientific integrity of the report; if Nesmith could find valid criticisms of the science contained within the report, then he'd have something to write about. Furthermore, the claim that there is only a "tiny handful" of opposition to global warming claims is ludicrous, especially considering the 18,000 signatures of like-minded scientists who claim that there is inadequate evidence to support the theory.

Why would there be such controversy concerning global warming? The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in a report that the temperature of the earth could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, and that sea levels could rise by 34 inches (Bailey 1). Surely a United Nations-appointed panel would know what they're talking about, right? The uncertainty arrives when considering the tool that the IPCC uses to reach their severe conclusions. The "climate models" that they analyze to reach such determinations have been shown to have several flaws that make any results from such models questionable. They do not take into account the fact that increased carbon-dioxide levels lead to significantly greater plant and animal growth or take the effects of cloud cover into consideration (Bailey 2). It could be argued that deforestation would counteract the former, but in fact, as of around 1990, there was a 30% increase in United States forests since the 1950s and Amazonian rain forests were increasing their vegetation by an estimated two tons per acre per year (Petition 19).

The accuracy of the climate models is further disproved by the fact that recent temperature measurements simply to do not match what predictions made with the climate models foretold. Tropospheric temperatures have decreased during the past 19 years by about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade (Petition 8). Global surface temperatures have been reported to have increased by approximately 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade, but due to the "urban heat island effect"-heat radiated from urban areas that skews global surface temperature readings (Schneider 29-30)-general global surface temperatures are not particularly reliable. However, the "East Park Station," which is considered to be among "the best situated rural station[s]" has, since 1940, shown a trend of minus 0.055 degrees Celsius per decade, which suggests that global surface temperatures may also be cooling slightly (Petition 8).

It is fairly undeniable that our planet does go through cycles of global warming-that's not a disputed issue. However, the claim that excessive carbon dioxide emissions produced by human activities are aggravating and/or accelerating this warming to a point where cataclysmic circumstances are likely is an affirmation that is subject to much debate within the scientific community and is by no means a proven fact or even viewed as an accurate theory by any majority of the scientific community. This isn't to say that measures shouldn't be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to allow for the possibility that global warming could occur; however, there is very little evidence to propose that global warming is any kind of serious or imminent threat, and such emission-reducing measures should only be taken insofar as they don't produce economic burdens on various countries-as a drastic emission-controlling program would do. Because there is little threat of global warming, there is no mandate for severe action to be taken to "correct" a non-existent problem.

Works Consulted

Adler, Jonathan H. "Hot Air." National Review Online. 24 Nov. 2003. .

Bailey, Ronald. "No Surprise." National Review Online. 24 Jan. 2001. .

Cato Institute. Long Hot Year: Latest Science Debunks Global Warming Hysteria. 31 Dec. 1998. .

Georgia, Paul. "Global-Warming Minefield." National Review Online. 15 Feb. 2002. .

Georgia, Paul. "Global-Warming Nonsense." National Review Online. 24 Nov. 2003. .

"Global Warming." Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Microsoft Corporation, 1993-1997.

"Heated Debate." Pbs.org. Public Broadcasting Station. 22 Oct. 1997. .

Moore, Thomas Gale. Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1998.

Nesmith, Jeff. "Foes of Global Warming Theory Have Energy Ties." Seattle Post-Intelligencer. 2 June 2003. .

Petition Project. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. 24 Nov. 2003. .

Philander, George S. Is The Temperature Rising?: The Uncertain Science of Global Warming. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998.

"Research Casts Doubt on Global Warming Theory." The Age. 7 Apr. 2003. .

Schneider, Stephen H. Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century? New York: Vintage Books, 1990.

Stroke, George W. "Global Warming Is Cyclical, Not Man-Made." Business Week. 10 Nov. 2003: 6. Proquest. .

Union of Concerned Scientists. Highlights of the Bush Administration's Abuse of Climate Science. 24 Nov. 2003. .