Hello, peeps! I recently finished a writing assignment for a writing class I’m a part of, and I decided to share it here. It’s definitely different than much of the stuff I usually post, but I think you’ll appreciate it.
The Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels once said, “If you tell a lie often enough and loudly enough, it becomes the truth” (HEART). I believe that is what politicians, scientists, and the media have attempted to do with the idea of global warming. In many ways, they are much like the Nazis, attempting to stifle free speech and label people who disagree with them as “anti-science.” Is doubt and even disbelief in global warming really anti-science, though? In short, the answer is a simple “no.” When it comes to global warming, scientists know very little; there is much evidence against it, and, if it is true, it’s certainly not the biggest issue facing our nation and planet today.
To learn the truth about global warming, one needs to know whom not to listen to, and in this matter, the mainstream media (e.g. CNN, CBS, ABC, et cetera) and liberal scientists have proven themselves untrustworthy. Consider the supposed “polar bear crisis” that has been going on for many years now. While the media tries to convince us that global warming will soon be the cause of polar bear extinction, the real story is much different. Polar bears are actually increasing in number (going from around five thousand members in the 1960s to around twenty-five thousand in 2007), and the only bears dying live in areas of the Arctic Circle where it’s actually getting colder (Lomborg, 4,5). Another strategy of global warming proponents is to highlight their evidence while ignoring wise counter arguments. For instance, Al Gore, former vice-president well-known for his liberal politics, made sure to appear on many news stations and speak about the influx of hurricanes in 2004 and 2005, but he was not too eager to mention the lighter hurricane years of 2006 and 2007 (Lomborg, xiv). Of course, the media has not helped this issue in the slightest. Sadly, most of the people talking about global warming on the news or other media outlets do not understand the earth’s ecosystems, so they’re simply trying to connect anecdotes from their lives to what they believe to be going on in the bigger picture (Wile, 39).
Contrary to what these proponents of global warming would like the public to believe, there is actually a large amount of hard data that directly contradicts the idea of global warming. For one thing, this “heat hike” really seems to be more of a cycle between cold years and hotter ones. All the data climate scientists currently have shows global temperatures as being lower than average decades ago. Now that we have a slight rise in global temperatures, it’s actually begun to outweigh those colder decades (Wile, 37). Plus, when one looks at these global temperatures using a smaller scale, it’s interesting to note that deviation from normal temperatures never changed over two degrees Celsius either way in the 120+ years studied. This is a temperature change that even proponents of global warming acknowledge is insignificant. In addition to this data, we also have graphs indicating tornado numbers as part of a cycle, the numbers going up for a few years, then down (NOAA). Again, this contradicts what many global warming scientists would expect.
Even if this far-fetched idea of global warming were true, it would certainly not be the most important issue facing our planet today. Of course, many scientists and reporters claim that global warming is a huge driver of other concerns today; thus, if we tackle global warming, we will take care of many other problems. But, as one thoughtful blogger pointed out, “claims that global warming will cause flooding, starvation, and extreme weather have thus far proven unfounded” (Agresti). Giving global warming supporters the benefit of the doubt, suppose we were to adopt Al Gore’s proposal for a $140 million carbon tax. Børn Lomborg, author of Cool It, says this “would hike gas prices by $1.25 per gallon and cut US emissions by half in 2015, yet have an almost immeasurable impact on temperatures—decreasing the average temperature in 2100 by 0.2 [degrees fahrenheit]. And the cost would be a dramatic $160 billion annually for the rest of the country” (Lomborg, xv). So, what global warming scientists want us to do is ignore real problems and go chase an imaginary one down a rabbit hole of spending. A better use of our money would be helping those around the world with malaria. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, malaria has cost on average $300 million each year (without the government actually being able to help much), and there were 438,000 deaths in 2015 (Unicef). So think of all the good $160 billion dollars could do to help people with malaria, hunger, and joblessness! Bjørn Lomborg, an author I mentioned earlier, put together a table in his book comparing the Kyoto protocol (a more liberal, climate-focused international agreement linked to the United Nations) and various smarter policies which are focused more on the economy and less on the issue of global warming. While the Kyoto protocol would cost millions and simply fuss over greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries, these economic-focused plans would do much more good than the Kyoto plan begins to promise in terms of disease and economics (162). While liberal climate scientists want to pull money out of everyone’s pockets and throw it at what they believe to be a huge problem, people who really understand all the issues facing our planet could do more good with less money. When thinking about the idea of climate change, one should remember that scientists are not all-knowing; there is a fair amount of evidence against it, and there are definitely more important things to focus on when planning, writing policies, and voting.
Next time you see reporters on the news or politicians in debates dramatically comparing global warming to various apocalyptic plagues, just question a bit. Do these people have a good grasp on science, or do they use science as a weapon they themselves do not understand? Are they citing hard data or figures that come from flimsy studies? If we are not careful who we believe, we will end up as Sesame Street-brainwashed children of the liberal age, taking whichever liberal idea this show propagates and adopting it into our worldview. Then, as adults, we will not be thinkers, but mindless believers, agreeing with whichever politician speaks in the most plain and dumbed-down way.
Agresti, James. Just Facts. 29 July 2013. 2 October 2016. <justfactsdaily.com>
HEART. 2010. 28 October 2016. <holocaustresearchproject.org>
Lomborg, Bjørn. Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming. New York: Random House, 2007.
NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. October 2016. 14 October 2016. <ncdc.noaa.gov>
Unicef. June 2016. 15 October 2016. <data.unicef.org>
Wile, Jay. Exploring Creation with Physical Science. Indiana: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc, 2007.