4 of 163

Write now Article Tools

In recent months, the term "global warming" has seemingly become a ubiquitous refrain of the environmentalist Left. In the face of criticisms by the Bush administration and the counter claims of AEI (American Enterprise Institute)-funded scientists, the global warming issue runs the risk of being labeled as nothing more than further yuppie-environmentalist panic-mongering.

However, everybody knows that the first step toward solving a problem is admitting that you have one, and on February 2nd, 2007 report, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did just that. The Workgroup I Summary for Policymakers, the collaborative findings of over 2,500 leading scientists from more than 30 countries, states conclusively that warming of the climate system is "unequivocal," and that it is very likely (more than 90% probable) that this warming is caused by human activity.

Bearing in mind these findings, and the fact that the three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998, and 19 out of the warmest 20 since 1980, it is impossible for a rational person to dismiss the prevalence of global warming. But what implications does this issue carry for us? Many people might not mind a world that's just a little bit warmer.

However, when viewed from a global perspective, the implications of the warming trend are severe. The IPCC estimated 3.2F to 7.2F increase in average temperature carries many undesirable consequences: expanding deserts, diminishing fresh water supply, a sea level climb of 7 to 23 inches, increased occurrence and severity of tropical storms, increased disease transmission, and fluctuating crop yields. Another chilling projection places two-thirds of the world's 6.5 billion people in a position of "increased water scarcity" by 2025, as a result of our shifting climate.

With all these forecasts of gloom and doom being thrown around, it is understandable that critics would be eager to paint a less morbid picture. The primary voice of criticism comes from a panel of scientists - experts offered $10,000 plus travel and other expenses by the AEI to find and report weaknesses in the IPCC's findings and methods. The AEI is a self-touted "nonpartisan, not-for-profit institution dedicated to research and education on issues of government, politics, economics, and social welfare." The think tank's quest for truth is funded in part by Exxon Mobil and led by a board of trustees composed of such undoubtedly "bipartisan" members as the Bush-appointed Lee R.

• 1
• 2
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Debating whether global warming is a threat or just media hype?
We want to hear your view. Write now!