Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Do we know all the facts about Global Warming


Do we know all the facts about Global Warming

More Info
									Global Warming: Is it scientifically and logically man’s responsibility?

Do we know all the facts about Global Warming? We get told one interpretation by
the media and by lecturers, but is this right? The argument here is whether man is
responsible for the increase in world temperature, or whether it is entirely coincidental
with scientific findings and that we have no, or little, impact. Oxford Brookes
University has a web page marking its notable contributions to the growing problem
of climate change: ranging from the planning of environmentally sustainable
buildings to gaining its Fair Trade status in 2003. This is commendable, but in light
of the science behind global warming, doesn’t it just add climate change to the band-
wagon of Green issues and hope for the best?
        The science behind Global Warming states that there has been a rise in
temperature over the last 40 years. Similarly, there has been a rise in carbon dioxide
emissions over the last 100 years. Anyone would therefore assume that the two are
linked in some way or another and that carbon dioxide causes an increase in
temperature. The BBC website predicts that summers will become hotter and winters
will become wetter as a result, and “over the next 73 years the temperature will
increase by 4 degrees”. The problem underlying all of these results is that despite a
correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature increase, there is no scientific
link that shows how one causes the other.
        Those who believe that man has a direct impact on temperature are in the
majority. The Green Party of Oxfordshire has been in existence for around forty
years, making it an authority on the subject. They argue two very plausible points
related to climate change: that Global Warming has caused fisheries to decline, and
that soil productivity has decreased as a result. Moreover, the February Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on climate change maintains that “greenhouse gases are
twenty times more responsible than solar activity in causing a rise in temperature”.
You might think therefore that because the Green Party has been in existence for so
long, and that governments in the western world are intent on reducing carbon
emissions, that there is a clear problem and we can do something about it. Our local
MP Andrew Smith seems to think so; he has stated that he is “pressing strongly in
Parliament for the Climate Change Bill, which will make it a legal requirement for the
UK to cut emissions”. But does this mean we do have an impact?
        On the other hand, those who oppose man’s impact on Global Warming are in
the minority. The main premise of this argument is that there is a distinct lack of
evidence, and the evidence we do receive is filtered through the media, who use it as
propaganda. For example, we are told of the correlation between carbon dioxide and
temperature change, but what we are not told is that carbon dioxide lags 800 years
behind temperature change, showing how temperature cannot be caused by carbon
dioxide. It is true that over the past forty years, temperature has risen, but history has
proved a rise and fall in temperatures since the ice age. During the middle ages, the
temperature increased, and then for two-hundred years there was a decrease in
temperature which saw the Thames freezing on several occasions. It is generally
contended that the “problem with climate change theory is that it is unfalsifiable”.
Essentially there is no scientific link showing man’s impact on climate change, for
how could we have caused the rise during the middle ages without the factories and
cars of today? The answer is we didn’t, it was nature.
        It might be best to hedge our bets with the issue, by reducing carbon emissions
we probably will stop other problems from occurring, and might even decrease the
rate of Global Warming. Nevertheless, it is not fair that the other side of the argument
is so quickly dispatched, in light of evidence that suggests otherwise. No-one is
suggesting that what the Green Party, government and Oxford Brookes University
stand for is morally wrong, but the way they present their findings is not logical.

To top