Summary:
Temperature, time has told us, is a fickle thing-prone to many variables. One day man may be able to calculate where our spinning home in the universe is going, what we can expect: whether a frozen winter dusk is our future or a blazing fiery sahara or an unaltered static terrain, but that time is not today, for now we are blinded by the lights of too many conflicting truths.
Under Fire
Recently shoved into the lime light by modern researchers, our atmosphere remains silent while pantomiming a global story; a story which unfortunately is interpreted in a plethora of ways. Our earth is too hot, some claim. Our earth's temperature is just fine, others declare. Dissenting experts and arguing scientists are creating a tension strung between two entirely opposite schools of thought. There isn't any clear answer, no one overarching agreement for any lay person to subscribe to. Absorbing the information with an attitude of skepticism, and reservation to radical single-sided views is an intelligent approach to this perplexing dilemma.
According to both sides of the fence it would appear that "ample evidence" both supports and refutes the concept that the earth has risen a substantial temperature (Doughton). Supporters of the greenhouse theory claim that the excessive use of fossil fuels and the constant pollution we humans pour forth upon our delicate ecosystem has created a blanket of carbon dioxide gas trapping in the heat of the sun. This residual heat bouncing between our planet and our ozone is melting glaciers, raising sea levels and pushing the natural balance of the planet to the extreme. In fact the Florida wetlands have risen in water level by nine inches since 1930 (Morell, 59). Taken to the most radical of computer simulations the seas could rise from "9-30 centimeters" in the span of a century (Watson). If left unchecked the heavy pollution we coat our planet with may very well reveal an ugly chapter in human history; by the year 2050 the number of heat related deaths in some parts of the world will double-that many more people could lose their lives because most of us (Americans) now cannot conceive of sacrificing our SUVs, CFC releasing hairsprays and, reforming our modern lifestyle to forge a better existence for those in our near future (Singer).
Swallowed with a glass of logic the pill of global warming reduces down to an issue of history. In the past twelve million years earth has been subject to at least seventeen different climate fluctuations (ice ages, etc.) therefore it is no suprise whatever for us to be witness to global temperature alterations (EDITORIAL: Global warming 'fiendishly complex'). It'd appear that mother nature is merely continuing her cycle that has held constant for eons. There is no evidence to concretely support the notion that because man exploits fossil fuels or shoots mass amounts of carbon dioxide into the air that it is the cause of any rise in temperature. Suprisingly, 100 million year ago carbon dioxide was not at the 365 parts per million as it is today but at 3,000 parts per million (Ray). Perhaps the planet is on a track towards this astounding amount of carbon dioxide, maybe it is plunging into a sudden ice age, soon the earth may resemble a scorched briquette, no one really knows.
The common trends that researchers have been studying have only been recorded for a relatively short amount of time, continuous temperature measurements have been taken since only the early nineteenth century. The information from 150-200 years is being used to predict our planet's future. Small amounts of data have become the basis of huge universal assumptions. True, ancient ice cores and tree rings hint to the climate of a land long ago, but they're sparse and no where near continuous. Only after vast data over enormous amounts of time have been collected can scientists merge together in opinion and agree on a prognosis of mankind's home.
The media is a powerful entity. Capable of turning the public's opinion, this creature can destroy or commence a social movement. The media and the public are intricately intertwined, they feed off of each other. The news tends to support the radical ideas of global warming (Ray). Absolutely there exist tempered and mild portrayals of this topic but media moguls know the people respond to drama, thus drama these moguls establish. Weighted against the money making business that is intense and intriguing news, the truth (an average of each of the opinions researchers have formed, a modest representation of the essence of global warming) pales and appears less poignant. This media volley of global warming, one station claiming it's a threat, the next refuting its competition, takes its toll on world issue conscious citizens. How does the common man know where to stand on this puzzle? Dissenting information is spread like icing across a cake, perpetuated by the very media the world has come to rely on. The reality of global warming is is that the truth of the matter dwindles out among the researchers and is lost somewhere on the path from them to us. We recognize that there are many answers to the question but we have no inclination as to which, if any, is correct.
In days past the earth morphed and changed significantly and it is surely said it will morph again. Temperature, time has told us, is a fickle thing-prone to many variables. One day man may be able to calculate where our spinning home in the universe is going, what we can expect: whether a frozen winter dusk is our future or a blazing fiery sahara or an unaltered static terrain, but that time is not today, for now we are blinded by the lights of too many conflicting truths.
This is the complete article, containing 892 words
(approx. 3 pages at 300 words per page).
