Global warming is authentic but

Global Warming -- it Is Authentic, but Why So Many Skeptics?

The phrases "global warming" and "climate change" have become household words over the past twenty years or so, and given the vast amount of discussion and research, and the clear signs that the planet is hearing up, an alert citizen can safety predict that this topic will become even more prominent in American society. What are the latest results from scientific studies? How are businesses responding to the challenges that are present today and certainly are on the horizon for the coming years? How are poor people faring -- or how will they fare -- as the climate heats up, the seas rise, and powerful weather systems create devastation in many parts of the globe? And why are so many people, in particular conservatives, in denial about the fact that the climate is heating up? What are the arguments from those that dispute the science of global warming? This paper presents scholarly research articles that delve into these issues and a number of other aspects of the global climate change phenomenon.

The Literature -- Updated Information on Global Warming

A peer-reviewed research article in the journal Progress in Physical Geography provides a review of key points that have been released (by scientists) to the public subsequent to the most recent report (The Fourth Assessment Report -- AR4) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC has played a "major role in framing the current understanding of likely impacts" from global climate change (Gosling, et al., 2011, p. 444).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international organization of scientists -- created by the United Nations' Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization -- that, over the past twenty plus years, has conducted to empirical research on climate change. The IPCC is just one among other science-based organizations studying the warming climate worldwide, but the IPCC is generally viewed as the most respected organization doing this valuable research.

The IPCC recruits the talent and experience of scientists from over 190 countries, and thousands of researchers with specific skills record temperature changes in the air, on land, and in the plant's waters. In its "First Assessment Report" (issued in 1990) the IPCC asserted that while there is a "natural greenhouse effect" which keeps the earth "warmer than it would otherwise be," emissions produced by human activities "…are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and nitrous oxide." Hence, in its first report the IPCC was establishing the science-based facts of climate change in the world, and it has continued to add data and verify the causes for the myriad weather-related changes the planet is going through.

In the "Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007," the IPCC states that "…Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is not evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level" (IPCC, 2007).

Gosling points to a study that predicts the harm to coastal regions of the planet if the amount of sea level rise (SLR) is 34 centimeters; up to 100 million people would be flooded out of their homes in that event (Gosling, 445).

If the SLR is up to 1 meter -- which some studies suggest is quite possible given the rapid melting of Arctic sea ice -- about 84 developing countries would be negatively impacted and nearly 2% of the wetlands on the planet would be lost. Additionally 56 million people would not only be flooded but would lose their homes (Gosling, 446). There is an ongoing threat to fishes and other sea life (including coral) because of the acidification of the ocean, Gosling continues (447). Oceans are absorbing the C02 (greenhouse gases) at high levels and that is causing a reduction in pH balance, posing danger to aquatic life. Ocean acidification (OA) "…can impair fish hearing and balance, sense of smell and sensing of predators," Gosling reports based on the recent literature.

It is also known that OA has a negative affect on "…commercially valuable calcifying organisms such as mussels and oysters," and this impacts Pacific cultures (in small island states) that have limited agriculture and depend on the sea for income and protein (Gosling, 447). Plant and animal species are threatened, as well, Gosling continues: about "…20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far…are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction" as global mean temperatures exceed c to 3( above pre-industrial levels (448).

More people will have to deal with "water scarcity" as the climate continues to warm up; in fact when the climate warms by 2( Centigrade, about 59% of the world's population could be facing "blue water shortage" (irrigation water for agriculture), Gosling explains (450). As to agriculture, the rising temperatures are expected to bring "extreme events" (huge tornados, massively powerful hurricanes and cyclones that destroy crops) as well as additional "pests, weeds and diseases" (Gosling, 452). Moreover, as to the impact on humans from additional pests, Gosling asserts that with a 2(C rise in global temperatures, an estimate 5 to 6 billion people "…will be at risk for dengue [fever]," spread by mosquitoes (453).

Are hurricanes more intense and more destructive due to the warming oceans, the drivers of these huge storms? Scientists from the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia institute of Technology and from the National Center for Atmospheric Research published a piece in the American Meteorological Society that separates the "muddied" public denial from the empirical science. The authors, professors, scientists and researchers, put forth hypotheses followed by rebuttals, and in the end their hypotheses have more credibility and science-based data than the rebuttals; some of the rebuttals to their data were made by known "anti-global warming" individuals. The rebuttals fall into categories the authors call "logical fallacies." As to the articles' verified hypotheses: a) the frequency "…of the most intense hurricanes is increasing globally"; b) as the sea surface temperatures (SST) increase, so does the intensity of tropical hurricanes; and c) global tropical sea surface temperatures increase as a direct result of greenhouse warming (Curry, et al., 2006).

An article in the peer-reviewed journal Science (Webster, et al., 2005, p. 1844) pointed out that over the 35 years up until 2005, there have been observed "A large increase…in the number and proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5." Webster and colleagues examined all of the tropical cyclones and hurricanes and determined that the warming of the SST has led to stronger hurricanes and cyclones. While the research did not report an "increase in the numbers of storms" due to the warming of sea surface temperatures, the research did show "a substantial change in the intensity distribution of hurricanes globally" (Webster, 1846).

The research showed no increase in the category 1 hurricanes; it showed "small" increased in the number of category 2 and 3 hurricanes; but "…hurricanes in the strongest categories (4 & 5) have almost doubled in number" in the ten years leading up to 2005 (Webster, 1846). In fact, in the 1970s there were 50 category 4 and 5 hurricanes, but in the ten years preceding 2005 there were 90 hurricanes in the strongest categories (Webster, 1846).

Meanwhile, the IPCC sent out a press release in March, 2012, which updates the data provided in the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. The IPCC expressed "medium confidence" that there will be, due to global climate change, "an observed increase in the length or number of warm spells or heat waves" in a number of regions of the planet (Lynn, 2012). The IPCC also expressed that there will be "a likely increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events" in comparison with what rainfall and other precipitation events are the normal and expected events in some areas -- particularly in "high latitudes and tropical regions" (Lynn, p. 2).

The 2012 IPCC update also expressed "medium confidence" that there will be an "increase in duration and intensity of droughts… [in] southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil and southern Africa" (Lynn, p. 2). The press release is just a summary of the 592-page report titled "Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate change Adaptation (SREX)" (Lynn, p. 1). Thousands of scientific studies are contained in the report, which was compiled by 220 scientists from 62 nations "…for which 18,784 outside expert and government review comments were received in the three rounds of formal review" (Lynn, p. 3).

Impact of Climate Change on the World's Poorest Nations

An article in the peer-reviewed Worldviews journal reports that "…the global poor will face the most devastating effects of global climate change…and it will be the poorest regions of the world with the least amount of resources to mitigate those negative effects" (Mastaler, 2011, p. 66). In Africa, for example, the IPCC predicts that "rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some countries by 2020"; this will compromise access to food and may leave 25 to 250 million people "vulnerable to increased water stress" (Mastaler, 66). And in Asia, the additional flooding expected due to the melting glaciers in the Himalayas could cause severe "diarrheal disease" and could also contribute to the "toxicity of cholera" in South Asia (Mastaler, 66).

In Africa and in South Asia, the ecosystems and weather patterns will be "uniquely impacted ecologically by climate change," Mastaler continues on page 71. Due to rising temperatures and scarce water sources "drought and desertification is expected to become increasingly common and more severe" in Africa and South Asia; and the inhabitants of those regions of the world are already struggling to make ends meet may be hit the hardest by global warming (Mastaler, 71).

The Literature -- Why are there Disbelievers?

Using the phrase "global warming" can bring quite different responses to people depending upon their political or ideological approach to the world, society, and science. This is an interesting and even confusing development for those who trust and believe in science, because the great volume of empirical evidence has shown for twenty years or more that indeed the climate is heating up. Moreover, the vast amount of research that has been conducted by qualified scientists has provided a wealth of data that not only proves there has been a rise in earth's temperatures, but the data also shows that human activities are the largest contributor to the warming of the climate.

An article in the peer-reviewed Public Opinion Quarterly points out that "…despite scientific consensus that the planet is warming 33% of Americans see 'no solid evidence' for this" (Schuldt, et al., 2011, 115). In terms of the political affiliation of who are skeptical about global warming, the research by Schuldt and colleagues shows that 57% of Republicans endorse the phrase "no solid evidence" while just 17% of Democrats agree with that phrase (116).

The authors arrived at these data on the global warming issue by surveying conservative and liberal think tank data. What factors go into the issue of whether citizens believe that global climate change is real? Schuldt notes that these factors are important in that regard: a) political orientation; b) perceived and actual temperature increases; c) years of education; and d) exposure to an trust in science and the media (116).

What is also very interesting in this scholarly article is that when the phenomenon is presented as "global warming," 44% of Republicans agree, but when the phrase "climate change" is used over 60% of Republicans agree (116). So semantics plays a key role in this issue. And when it comes to determining why the planet is heating up, 50% of Democrats believe human activity is the cause while only 18% of Republicans agree that humans (burning fossil fuels, for example) are the cause (116).

Meanwhile an article in the peer-reviewed publication Bioscience points out that notwithstanding the "copious" flow of information from scientists, and the "dozens of data-heavy reports on climate change" from the IPCC, the response from policymakers, including "those at the topmost positions in government," has been "miniscule" (Powledge, 2012, p. 8). One main point of this article is the question, given that elected political leaders are so reticent to take any meaningful action -- because some fear action would harm the economy in the U.S. -- how do scientists "communicate in a meaningful way with policymakers"? (Powledge, 8).

The author references Pamela A. Matson, an interdisciplinary earth scientist from Stanford University, who explains that scientists "…can't do much about politics," but scientists can continue reminding citizens of the stark facts regarding global warming. Matson is quoted saying that people need to be shown "…that there is a huge amount of evidence about climate change, its causes, and the risks associated with it" (Powledge, 9). Decision makers need to decide if they are willing to "…expose future generations to even greater risks," Matson continued. And while Powledge agrees with Matson, he asserts that there "…are scant signs of leadership" among federal officials (9).

The scholarly journal Environment presents an article that explains when Republicans and Democrats began to go their separate ways vis-a-vis the environment in general and global warming in particular. While Republican President Richard Nixon had worked with Democrats in Congress to create environmental legislation (The Clean Water Act of 1972 and The Clean Air Act of 1970), in the 1980s, Republican President Ronald Reagan "…labeled environmental protection a burden on the economy and tried to weaken them and reduce their enforcement" (Dunlap, 2008, p. 26).

The Literature -- Propaganda Used to Influence Public Opinion

In the 1990s the conservative movement in the U.S. -- foundations, think tanks, public intellectuals and media (including right wing radio announcers like Rush Limbaugh and TV personalities Sean Hannity and others on FOX News) -- "mobilized" to challenge climate change and policies directed towards the warming climate (Dunlap, 27). Limbaugh broadcasts his far right wing program on over 600 radio stations and constantly reminds his listeners that the idea of man-made global warming is "…a hoax" (Limbaugh, April 30, 2012). How does he know it is a hoax? He says he has read "…faked e-mails from the University of East Anglia, e-mails written by participants in the hoax who described how to cover up the hoax…it hasn't warmed in ten years," he told a caller. "Virtually every claim these people made haven't come true" (Limbaugh).

Meanwhile, Dunlap explains that the Limbaugh-led propaganda and more thoughtful skeptics in the conservative movement have been successful in convincing Republicans and conservative independents that global warming is some kind of liberal smoke-screen to harm business and scare people. A poll referenced by Dunlap shows that between 1997 and 2008, the percentage of Republicans that believe news about global warming is "exaggerated" has "increased significantly," from 37% in 1997, to 59% in 2008 (Dunlap, 28). The data from the Democrat side of the equation shows that Democrats who sense the news about global warming is exaggerated declined from 27% in 1997 to 17% in 2008.

Moreover, polling referenced by Dunlap shows that Republicans' belief in human-caused climate change (that is, the burning of fossil fuels -- coal, oil, gasoline burned in cars and trucks) declined from 53% in 2001 to 40% in 2008. While more Republicans were doubting that humans were causing climate change dropped 13% in that time frame, Democrats' believe that humans are causing climate warming rose from 70 to 72% (from 2001 to 2008) (Dunlap, 29).

An article in the peer-reviewed Journal of Business Ethics explains that very successful anti-global warming media campaigns are operated by "Astroturf" organizations like Western Fuels Association and the Heartland Institute (Cho, et al., 2011, p. 571). The authors define "Astroturf" organizations as "fake grassroots organizations" normally sponsored by "…large corporations to support any arguments or claims in their favor" or to "…deny those against them" (571). Cho and colleagues assert that Astroturf organizations generally violate accepted codes of ethics -- codes established by public relations associations -- and basically present "deceptive" activities. When Astroturf groups "purposefully…manipulate public opinion and harm scientific research" that represents "…a serious lapse in ethical conduct" (Cho, 572).

By hiding their "true identity" and creating a new identity that "…the audience believes to be shared" the Astroturf groups that corporations sponsor use their visibility "as implicit tools of persuasion" (Cho, 575). Cho mentioned the Heartland Institute as one of several Astroturf groups spewing propaganda to the public to create doubt about global climate change. Writing in The Guardian, journalist George Monbiot explains that the Heartland Institute (HI) is actually a lobbying group that has received at least $676,000 from ExxonMobil (Monbiot, 2012, p. 2). The Heartland Institute published a list in 2007 of "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"; in this particular Astroturf publication the HI put forward the view that these 500 scientists believed "Modern Warming" is no more worrisome than "Medieval Warming" and "Roman Warming" in past centuries (Monbiot, 2).

After checking some of scientists that the HI listed as doubters, blogger and freelance journalist Kevin Grandia, a director for Greenpeace, received 45 responses from scientists in the HI list. These 45 responses arrived within 48 hours after Grandia reached the scientists through emails. All 45 responders were "…outraged that they had been traduced," Grandia writes. Dr. David Sugden, professor of geography, University of Edinburgh wrote that he was "…horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite" (Grandia, 2007). Dr. Svante Bjorck, with the Geo Biosphere Science Centre at Lund University, responded: "What you [HI] have done is totally unethical" (Grandia, 2007). There were many more irate responses to the Grandia email inquiries.

On the subject of the use of unethical strategies to convey a point, the Heartland Institute launched a billboard campaign with a photo of notorious mass-murdered "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski (and the words, "I still believe in Global Warming. Do You?"). In their billboard campaign the HI said that those that accept the science of climate change "…are on the radical fringe" and the most "prominent advocates" of global warming are "murderers, tyrants, and madmen" (Hance, 2012). Besides the Unabomber, the HI had intended -- prior to shutting down the provocative program -- to also feature billboards with Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, Fidel Castro, and other murderers and psychopaths (Hance, 1).

The press release put out by HI stated: "What these murderers and madmen have said differs very little from what spokespersons for the United nations, journalists for the 'mainstream' media, and liberal politicians say about global warming" (Hance, 1). After removing the billboards -- following widespread negative public response -- the Heartland Instituted issued a statement, saying this project was just "an experiment," and after 24 hours the "results are in: It got people's attention" (Current.com).

The press release continued: "This billboard was deliberately provocative, an attempt to turn the tables on the climate alarmists by using their own tactics but with the opposite message…we do not apologize for running the ad, and we will continue to experiment with ways to communicate the 'realist' message on the climate" (Current.com).

Meanwhile, Monbiot references strategies put in place by the "Information Council for the Environment" (ICE), a group that was set up by the Western Fuels Association, the National Coal Association and Edison Electric Institute. In order to make their propaganda pitch effective, the ICE group identified "two possible target audiences": a) "Target 1: Older, less educated males" that would be "receptive to" their propaganda that the media were just trying to scare people about climate change; and b) "Target 2: younger, lower-income women" because these females are "…likely to soften their support for federal legislation after hearing new information…" (Monbiot, p. 1).