The Political Discussion of Climate Change, Research Paper Example

Currently, many scientific professionals and politicians are debating whether or not climate change exists and whether it is a natural or man-made phenomenon. Ultimately, scientific consensus indicates that climate change is real, and although it is a natural process, humanity has contributed to global warming through using of technologies that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Even though this consensus exists, many individuals believe that climate change is a hoax, which is an opinion that exists primarily among those who are unable to fully understand the scientific data. Therefore, global warming is less of a debate and more of an issue related to the professionals that are responsible for distributing related information to the public. Typically, news reports on this topic consult politicians as professionals, who disclose their personal opinions rather than facts. These reports are also influenced by private sector individuals and corporations in order to support their financial investments. To determine the source of the climate change debate and propose a solution as to how citizens can obtain the correct information about this subject, this paper will discuss the current scientific consensus about climate change and some of the projected scenarios about what will happen in the next century if climate change is not mitigated, some of the arguments being made by those who do not believe climate change is, and which professionals should be consulted in order to eliminate confusion surrounding climate change in public reports.

The belief that climate change is an opinion rather than a fact is a bias based on personal financial interests. As a consequence, individuals with power are able to promote their ideas and the result is a population that doubts science. However, there is overwhelming evidence that indicates that global warming is a true phenomenon that we should be worried about. Current life expectancy for individuals living in the United States is 77 for men and 82 for women. Advances in medical science will cause people to live longer and longer and time continues, and a young adult living today could very possibly live until the end of the century and beyond. Thus, the issue of climate change is no longer a problem for future generations to deal with and we must address these issues immediately. There is scientific evidence that proves that we are currently experiencing global warming and is therefore our responsibility to protect the planet both for ourselves and for future generations.

According to NASA, climate change and global warming are interrelated concepts. Climate change is defined as, “the specific changes most commonly associated with the atmosphere and the “average weather,” including temperature, humidity, cloudiness, or precipitation changes” while global warming is defined as “broader changes to all aspects of our world including areas such as the availability of water resources, sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and biodiversity” (NASA 1). If climate change is not mitigated, it is expected that Earth’s temperatures will change dramatically, to potentially unlivable climates. Extreme heat will result in the destruction of the polar ice caps, which will not only kill the wildlife living in artic climates, but contribute to rising sea levels. Although this doesn’t seem problematic at first, destroying wildlife will dramatically alter the planet’s ecosystem, which will impact the food that humans have available for consumption based on principles of competition from the other organisms that are not eliminated. Furthermore, rising sea levels will alter the coast lines of many continents, and the borders of many countries will decrease and islands will disappear. Therefore, there will be less physical land available for humans and animals to live on, which will result a many deaths and a lowered human population.

The most convincing proof for global warming are studies that have tracked the Earth’s average temperatures over several years. There is a net increase of temperature that is correlated with rising sea levels and diminishing levels of artic ice (NOAA 1). These studies have been completed by the National Climatic Data Center of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), therefore these studies are well funded and well accepted by scientists across the world. Despite their reliability as a source and the reliability of many other peer-reviewed scientific sources, many individuals believe that climate change is not real. A primary example of climate change naysayers are politicians and corporate figures with financial interest in climate change.

A majority of people who do not believe that global warming is real take this point of view because they either do not understand the technical information generated by scientists or because they have a financial interest in defending this point of view. Recently, a striking example of a lack of understanding was introduced when Donald Trump entered the public arena to speak about climate change. The winter had been one of the most severe winters the United States had experienced in a long time, and Trump decided that global warming was not real because it seemed that the planet was cooling rather than warming. Specifically, he tweeted, “This very expensive Global Warming bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice” (Luippold 1). This confusion occurred primarily because Donald Trump doesn’t understand the definitions of global warming and climate change. Although he observed low temperatures over the winter, as many citizens of the United States did, temperature extremes are accounted for in this theory. Furthermore, if Donald Trump had paid attention to scientific evidence, he would notice that despite the cold temperatures observed one winter, there is still a positive trend in increasing global temperature overtime. Data outliers are possible in this theory, and an occasional cold winter does not counter scientific evidence on this basis. Ultimately, however, since Donald Trump is an influential man, many individuals believe his opinion as truth. Since he is a trustworthy individual, tweeting information without supporting it with fact has become knowledge for some. Therefore, it is essential to inform the population of matters concerning climate change in manners that promote true information rather than opinion. In cases where opinion must be present, it is important to show both sides on the matter and the supporting evidence for each so that people may make their own informed decisions.

A second example of an individual who claims disbelief in global warming and has encouraged the populace to follow him is Jacob Javitz, a former United States Senator for New York. It is difficult to discern whether this individual believes in climate change or otherwise, but it is clear that the opinions that he preaches and voted for laws upon was based on the fact that he was being supported by the oil industry. “Since 1990, oil companies have paid Republicans $163,773,719 to not believe in climate change” (Downwithtyranny). Although not all Republicans have been involved in this political issue, it appears that this group is generally anti-climate change; a vast majority of the group takes the stance that this policy is a hoax. It is likely that each politician believes this for different reasons, but the oil industry is a major contributor to the beliefs of many. Ultimately, drilling for oil and the carbon dioxide emissions that its use results in has been said to be the main culprit for climate change. Therefore, oil companies are worried that is legislation is passed in order to prevent climate change, their business will be non-existent. While this is not entirely true, their business will certainly be reduced and there will be more money in uncovering alternative fuel sources. Although this is currently occurring because fossil fuels are a limited resource, research has not been as effective as it would be if there were support for climate change. By convincing a majority of Republicans to ignore climate change as plausible, there will be more fossil fuel extraction and sales.

It is essential to recognize that even though oil companies are bribing several politicians to influence their views, this type of bribery is not necessary for many of them. It is a well-known fact that Republican President George W. Bush became wealthy due to his involvement in both working in and investing in the oil industry (Jackson). He continued to invest in oil during his presidency, which resulted in much anti-environmental legislation. Ultimately, this is a prime example of how private interests can morph the opinions of individuals. It is possible that Bush believed in global warming and the environment, but it is clearer that he was concerned in the money he was making from his investments. To protect his own personal interests, Bush promoted the concept of climate change as a hoax.

It is clear from the above discussion that opinions over climate change are both conflicting and biased. Scientists have an opinion that clearly contrasts those of business professionals and many politicians. Therefore, it is essential to derive a way to communicate the true destruction that global warming can cause for humanity in a manner that is perpetuated to the public. Currently, a major roadblock in doing so is the way that media portrays the issue. Although it is useful for newscasters to call upon the opinions of individuals they believe to be professionals, it is important to consider who a professional is in the field of climate change (Boykoff 125). Primarily, these are individuals that have conducted their own original research on the topic or have conducted systematic reviews of these studies. However, we primarily see business professionals and politicians report their findings on climate change rather than scientists. It is important to consider that these people are not trained to be scientists and therefore do not have a true understanding of the material that is presented. Therefore, it is essential to include real scientists in the debate over whether climate change does or does not exist.

A second step that is necessary for the media to take is an indication of whether information presented is fact or opinion. Typically, news viewers watch politicians they respect on the news share their opinion about a particular subject and many tend to believe their words as fact. However, it is important to consider that the purpose of calling such a politician to the newsroom is primarily for them to discuss their opinion on policy rather than whether information is factual. It is possible to not want to vote on environmentally favored policies even though the individual may believe in these policies. Since politics is ultimately a battle between being reelected, supporting ones own beliefs, and representing the public, the opinions that a politician presents may not necessarily be true to his or her own thoughts and ideas. Therefore, although these ideas should be presented and are still considered news, they need to be done in a way that emphasizes that these are only the thoughts of this one individual.

An additional way to clarify the concept of global warming for the public is to allow politicians and scientists to engage in a debate (Ladle 231). It is essential for all viewers to be exposed to the evidence available for each side and judge their decision on the basis of which argument is the most cohesive. It is likely that many individuals who do not believe in global warming will have their minds changed once the factual information is presented to them. In this process, it is essential to select individuals who are truly considered professionals on both sides of the argument. Therefore, a scientist or government researcher should be selected to defend this view.

In conclusion, scientists have provided a wealth of factual information that confirms the existence of global warming. Despite this, individuals with personal financial interests in the oil industry and those who do not fully understand the scientific evidence speak out against this theory and convince many others of the validity of their arguments. To prevent a lack of understanding of global warming, it is important for the media to give equal airtime for both facts and opinions related to this concept. Furthermore, more scientific professionals should be interviewed so that the understanding of the data that supports climate change will be in the public domain. Lastly, the media should encourage debates between politicians and scientists so both points of view can be presented side by side.

Works Cited

Boykoff, M.T.; Boykoff, J.M. “Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press”. Global Environmental Change14 (2004): 125–136. Print.

Brook, J. How the Texas governor made his millions. 13 May 1999. Web. 7 July 2014. <http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/13/president.2000/jackson.bush/>

DownWithTyranny. Since 1990 Oil Companies Have Paid Republicans $163,773,719 To Not Believe In Climate Change. 22 June 2014. Web. 7 July 2014. <http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2014/06/since-1990-oil-companies-have-paid.html>

Ladle, R. J.; Jepson, P.; Whittaker, R. J. “Scientists and the media: the struggle for legitimacy in climate change and conservation science”. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 30.3 (2005): 231. Print.

Luippold, R. Colbert Jabs Donald Trump’s Expert Climate Change Analysis. 8 January 2014. Web. 6 July 2014.<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/colbert-trump-climate-change_n_4561585.html>

NASA. Climate Change FAQ. N.D. Web. 6 July 2014. <http://climate.nasa.gov/climatechangeFAQ/>

NOAA. Climate Change Indicators. N.D. Web. 6 July 2014. <http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/>