The Utter Distortion of Global Warming

The global warming numbers are staggering, scary, and daunting: ten warmest years on record have occurred in the past 15 years; the 6-8 inches rise of sea levels in the last 100 years; a 67.5% increase in the concentration of the Earth’s carbon dioxide from the year 1900; the depletion of valuable fossil fuels by human consumption; a decrease of the polar ice caps at a rate of nine percent every 10 years; and the almost one degree Celsius increase in the Earth’s average temperature in the last two centuries.  The debate is not if Global Warming is happening; the real debate is rather the warming is due to human negligence and abuse or if the warming is part of the world’s natural cycle of climate change.  But what if there is a third option?  What if the global warming is due to a combination of both factors and the solution requires research and solutions from both opposing sides?  It is time to stop debating on the obvious existence of global warming, and instead, attack the issue head on as both a man made and climate change instead of either or.

In his lecture “The Truth about Global Warming-Science and Distortion,” Nobel Peace Prize Winner Stephen Schneider pointed out that the mass media and special interest groups from both sides are creating a fraudulent debate in regards to global warming.  “Special interest groups will take one component, put it out of context, and spin to fit their interests, and you end up with “the end of the world” vs. “good for you.”  This is called “two lowest probability outcomes” and when left by the media and special interests to the public to figure out on their own, the outcome is “utter distortion.” Instead of being an issue that is being solved by the systems of science, the problem of global warming has become the rope in a special interest game of tug-of-war, and the mud puddle in the middle is the stockpile of the real facts that become so muddled in the dirt, no one can decipher or tell them apart.   (“The Truth about Global Warming-Science and Distortion,” Stephen Schneider).

What are the facts? The fact is global warming is very real.  NASA defines global warming as “the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases.”  Environmentalists sticking steadfast to their hypothesis that this global warming is due humans’ excessive use, particularly in the past 200 years since the industrial revolution in the ninetenth century, of valuable fossil fuels, causing environmental problems of dangerously high carbon dioxide levels, record heat waves, melting ice caps leading to record high sea levels and stronger storms, disappearing forests, and the extinction of thousands of the world’s species.  Then there is the other side of the argument that includes scientists and special interest groups who feel that there is an alternative explanation to global warming which is that of natural climate change.  Most conservatives believe that climate change is the cause of global warming and that most liberals and global warming supporters are too quick to predict the cause without weighing out all the causes.  See the tug-of-war battle now?

So who’s right? What if both are right? The fact of the matter is that the Earth has been experiencing natural cycles of cooling and warming since its creation over 4.5 billion years ago.  Polar ice caps have been melting, freezing, melting, and then freezing again since the beginning of time.  The Bering Strait, Pangaea, Himalayas, Swiss Alps, Mt. Denali, and the Grand Canyon all came from melting glaciers and ice caps, and the rising and receding of sea levels.  There are whole mountain ranges miles below the ocean that were once high above sea level.  Even during the medieval times, it is believed that there was actually a warmer period of summer than the ones the Earth has been experiencing in the past 15 years.  One also cannot forget that, since its creation over 4 billion years ago, the Earth has experienced at least 4 Ice Age periods; the last one having occurred about 1.8 million years ago during the Pleistocene Period (livescience.com).  All these natural occurrences are examples of and proof that the Earth does have natural shifts in its climate cycles. These examples are also similar, if not more extreme, than the effects the planet is experiencing in the global warming of today’s day and age. 

On the other hand, one can’t deny the dangerous and debilitating effects that the human species are having on the planet with the over consumption of fossil fuels and over saturation of the Earth’s atmosphere with carbon dioxide. There is no denying that the oceans are getting warmer, and cities on the coasts, like New Orleans and even New York City, are experiencing stronger and more powerful storm fronts as a result of those increased average temperatures of the ocean waters and eroding of marshlands and beaches that act as nature’s “sponge” to help protect coastal cities and towns against flooding.  Countries like China, the US, and India are the world’s highest coal consumers at 47 percent, 14 percent, and 9 percent respectively (eia.gov).  With an overall oil consumption that is 25 percent of the world’s total production and oil companies like Exxon making $104 million per day, of course the US special interest groups like Koch Industries wants the public to believe the hypothesis that natural climate change is the cause of global warming (The Week, Feb. 16, 2013).   With new pipeline construction projects such as the Keystone Pipeline, on standby with a potential of over $130 billion in oil revenue over a course of 20 years (Keystone-xl.com), why would special interest oil groups or the politicians backed by these groups want the public to believe that the consumption of fossil fuels is causing dangerous global warming effects on the planet?

My argument is not for either side; I believe that the issues of global warming are a combination of both natural climate changes and man made pollution factors.  There is just not enough evidence to discredit natural climate change causation.  We haven’t been tracking weather patterns for long enough time, nor have we had the satellite technology needed to accurately study the climate system factors, such as global average cloudiness, to scientifically discredit the Earth’s natural climate cycles as contributors to global warming.  Why can’t we work to find greener and cleaner energy options and track the planet’s natural climate change so when our children’s children are faced with the same issues or problems, we have provided the history of science for them to refer to so they don’t repeat the mistakes we are making with this issue today?  I also can’t deny the clear facts on the environmentalists’ side as well.  Having lived in Alaska as a child for 4 years, and recently visiting again this year, I have witnessed that humans definitely do have a direct effect on the planet. When I went to go see a famous glacier right outside of Girdwood that I used to visit as a child; I was greatly shocked to see that in place of the beautiful ice blue glacier that came all the way down the mountain was nearly almost gone and was mostly replaced with mud and grass.

As Stephen Schneider stated, we are living in world of utter distortion when it comes to the matter of global warming.  (“The Truth about Global Warming-Science and Distortion,” Stephen Schneider).  Why are we sitting around arguing over what the Greenland tipping point is or where it is?  Why are we not just coming together on the simple fact that the Greenland tipping point is there no matter the cause and work instead to find a way to avoid it?  The question is not rather or not we come up with greener energy options and use them, because we are at the point where now that question does not matter; we don’t have a choice.  Green energy is now our reality, and it doesn’t matter if it’s Mother Nature’s fault or Exxon’s.  This is the time that the public takes the “two lowest probability outcomes” that the media and special interest groups offer and throw it out the door.  What if we, as the public, make the question of “why" irrelevant and force energy companies to face the real relevant question of “how do we fix it?”  Compromise is how we do it.  The green energy conversion can’t be done overnight; so let’s meet in the middle and  tap into our natural gas options along with building the Keystone Pipeline to gain some energy dependence and economic stability as a country  as we make the transition and reinvest in rebuilding a planet friendly, profitable, and new infrastructure.  At the end of the day, when our sea levels have risen three ft. and our coasts are being hit by storms on the scale we never could have imagined, our great grandchildren are not going to care who was right about causation; they are going to care about the fact we failed at finding a solution.  Since we agree there is global warming but not on causation, why don’t we parallel, double park, sideways?  Let’s treat the problem as a causation of both factors and devote valuable time, effort, and ideas on the real matter at hand and close the door on utter distortion by truly finding a solution to global warming that covers all bases.