When considering theories within modern science, it would be wise to recall Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Physics, that for every action there exists an equal and opposite reaction. Such was seen with the popularization of Darwin’s theory of evolution during the early twentieth century, and it is being seen again in the contemporary debate concerning global warming and climate change; throughout the world, there are scientists which believe firmly in their occurrence and danger, as well as others who feel that there is little cause for alarm. In the former camp are those who see the melting of the polar ice caps and increase in average global temperature as signs of man’s artificial impact on the environment. The latter group see such change as cyclical in nature and thus of no concern to man. To date, much of the national discourse has been controlled by those extolling man’s harm on the environment, but for such a lengthy and vigorous debate to occur as has been seen on this issue, the dissenting voices have had to provide an equally compelling narrative.
Detractors of climate change theory come from all walks of life and fill career posts across the social spectrum, but those heard most loudly are conservative teachers, politicians and business leaders. In fact, is often this last group, those heavily invested in the industries under attack as mass polluters, which contribute the most language to the belief that humans have not caused the change in global climate. Often coming from companies which benefit from the extraction and use of fossil fuels, they contend there are natural explanations for the changes being seen in the environment.
But what, exactly, are these opposing narratives to explain climate change? The reasons vary, but share the common feature of looking “at the small pieces of the puzzle, while neglecting the full picture,” according to Skepticalscience.com, a website dedicated to rebutting just such claims. The most frequent assertion by this crowd is that climate has changed before, with periods of prolonged heating and cooling. Alternatively, it is also suggested that an increase in the number of sunspots over the last three decades is to blame. Attacks on the methodology of scientists are also popular, as claims have been made that the models connecting climate change with CO2 increases are unreliable, as are temperature records.
Division amongst the non-scientific public exists about the very occurrence of global warming and climate change. However, even amongst those who agree that something is happening within the environment, there is no consensus about the cause, or thus the remedy. To those employed in fields heavily funded by the presumed leading perpetrator, fossil fuels, a variety of natural causes exist to explain away any negative impact humans have had on the earth. As they continue to stall legislation and greenhouse gas-reducing projects in private industry, only time will what effect will be had on the world around us.
Sources Used:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
–A once-stop shop for everything needed to explain both sides of the climate change debate. Provides not only rebuttals to , but also the actual arguments of climate change skeptics.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria
–Article explaining that climate change is a cyclical event, and thus outside of the realm of human cause or control.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-change-school-20120116,0,2808837.story
–Story from the Los Angeles Times about the introduction of climate change skepticism into curricula across the nation.