2008 Woodie Awards
Global warming opinions stem from ignorance
David Chmura
Issue date: 5/22/08 Section: Opinion
The issue of Global Warming has separated many individuals into distinct divided sides. Advocates supporting that mankind is "dooming" the earth with our toxic output of carbon-dioxide and those that tend to believe that global warming is merely a cycle that earth has gone through before all have a very common denominator.
How do you know? And where did your decision originate? These two questions will stymie some, and others will knock you out with answers. However, as aggressive as some will defend their position, the reality can be argued that we really don't know. Every scientist has his/her theory of who has caused global warming or what the effects might be. And often times supporters of either side tend to side with their political affiliations.
As of right now, some will say that global warming has become more of a political agenda than an issue in need of truthful pursuit and non-bias.
Former Vice President Al Gore has done a phenomenal job persuading millions of individuals that global warming is an imminent and malignant threat. He even titled his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". But what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because now that we know that we're going to create a catastrophic environment for our kids, we will be inconvenienced if we take measures to try and prevent it? That may be the reason. However, one would think that such a prominent advocate of saving the environment would do a little more on his part though and stop preaching to those who don't fly in private jets or live in a mansion.
Besides his hypocrisy, post analysis of his presentation by scientists revealed some deeply flawed material that critically undermines his theory. For instance take Gore's graph of temperature and carbon-dioxide; Gore stated that in direct consequence to high carbon-dioxide levels, temperature then rises. This would make sense to those supporting his theory. Humanity's increased output of carbon-dioxide would now start warming global temperatures. In reality though, it has been proven by many scientists though that the fundamental idea that carbon-dioxide first rises then temperature is indefinitely wrong. It's the opposite way around.
Before you take a side and maintain a rigid position on an issue such as global warming, it would be best to do the research yourself. Study both your own side thoroughly, then thoroughly study the opposing side. It doesn't matter what the issue is, this perspective on learning and making decisions for oneself is imperative to making a logical and meaningful decision.
Many people that adamantly maintain an opinion have only generated that viewpoint on a word of mouth basis. It will aid considerably in defending ones argument if both sides are studied by the individual and both sides are analyzed by the one trying to make a logical decision.
How do you know? And where did your decision originate? These two questions will stymie some, and others will knock you out with answers. However, as aggressive as some will defend their position, the reality can be argued that we really don't know. Every scientist has his/her theory of who has caused global warming or what the effects might be. And often times supporters of either side tend to side with their political affiliations.
As of right now, some will say that global warming has become more of a political agenda than an issue in need of truthful pursuit and non-bias.
Former Vice President Al Gore has done a phenomenal job persuading millions of individuals that global warming is an imminent and malignant threat. He even titled his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth". But what exactly is that supposed to mean? Because now that we know that we're going to create a catastrophic environment for our kids, we will be inconvenienced if we take measures to try and prevent it? That may be the reason. However, one would think that such a prominent advocate of saving the environment would do a little more on his part though and stop preaching to those who don't fly in private jets or live in a mansion.
Besides his hypocrisy, post analysis of his presentation by scientists revealed some deeply flawed material that critically undermines his theory. For instance take Gore's graph of temperature and carbon-dioxide; Gore stated that in direct consequence to high carbon-dioxide levels, temperature then rises. This would make sense to those supporting his theory. Humanity's increased output of carbon-dioxide would now start warming global temperatures. In reality though, it has been proven by many scientists though that the fundamental idea that carbon-dioxide first rises then temperature is indefinitely wrong. It's the opposite way around.
Before you take a side and maintain a rigid position on an issue such as global warming, it would be best to do the research yourself. Study both your own side thoroughly, then thoroughly study the opposing side. It doesn't matter what the issue is, this perspective on learning and making decisions for oneself is imperative to making a logical and meaningful decision.
Many people that adamantly maintain an opinion have only generated that viewpoint on a word of mouth basis. It will aid considerably in defending ones argument if both sides are studied by the individual and both sides are analyzed by the one trying to make a logical decision.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Don Barrie
posted 5/30/08 @ 3:08 PM PST
Unfortunately, this editorial is more of a tirade against Al Gore than an informed discussion of global warming.
First, let me clarify a common misconception about carbon dioxide and temperature?a misconception this editorial repeats. (Continued…)
Post a Comment