The Global Warming Debate

This entry was posted by on Saturday, 12 June, 2010 at

This is necessary because of the scandal at Hadley CRU. We can’t fix this problem when much of the United States population believes that this is a made up issue. We are also taking a major chance here, since other countries will develop methods to deal with these problems. I’m not in favor of the United States having to purchase mitigation equipment from other countries, or having predictable disasters cause further damage to our economy. It’s especially a problem when younger Americans don’t seem to consider global warming a major concern, and this is happening, according to E360.

I’ve heard people say that greenhouse gases are not a problem, or that Carbon Dioxide should not be considered a greenhouse gas. Are you familiar with reports on the atmosphere of Venus? Enough carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and large amounts of heat will be trapped, and the temperature will skyrocket. It is possible that the warming will open up new farmland near the poles, such as in the Canadian tundra, but it will destroy farmland around the equator, producing many more refugees. Carbon particles that land on ice in the Arctic absorb heat just as the black asphalt in cities absorbs heat, as the ice changes from clear to black.

Global warming causes a lot of natural disasters, especially in California, according to the University of California.
Some of these problems are things I have written about in the past. An increase in the temperature melts ice and makes the sea levels rise. For a state like California, with large populations on the coast, this can cause disasters. In addition, higher average temperatures increase the damage that wildfires cause in California. The Securities and Exchange Commission now requires corporations to take these effects into account when estimating future profitability on their financial statements. Generally Accepted Accounting Practices require a company to list expected losses on its books when there is a high likelihood that the losses will happen.

Sometimes, the best way to argue in favor of a position is to study the opponents’ arguments, in my opinion. Here is an anti global warming argument. The paper claims that dealing with global warming is expensive. It is expensive, and the damage from not dealing with these problems is even more expensive. The author suggests conspiracy theory, which can signal a weak argument. Finally the author does suggest methods of mitigation such as cleaning carbon out of the air, which is definitely possible. Preventing a problem is often cheaper than dealing with a problem which has already happened, just look at the Gulf of Mexico as an example.

Comments are closed.