State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State

of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear State of Fear
Tourism, Ecotourism and Global Warming Report State of Fear 3/30/2011 Rachelle Courte

State of Fear Report Global warming has been an issue for several years, however, only recently in the last few years has it been brought to the publics attention. Global warming is considered to be one of the biggest threats known to this planet. While natural disasters are currently occurring everywhere in the world, it is projected that there will be several more devastating disasters that will happen due to global warming.

Within the last twenty years, it is stated that the earths temperatures has risen. The graph shown above represents the mean global temperature from each weather station around the world for more than a hundred years. As clearly shown in the graph, there has been a steady increase of temperature beginning in 1970; this is believed to be due to industrialization being at its extreme. Due to industrialization being at its extreme, this is causing a rise in

carbon dioxide; therefore as the level of carbon dioxide increases so does the earths temperature. The levels of carbon dioxide are increasing due to human activity. In the last several years we have been releasing a large amount of greenhouse gases released by the burning of fossil fuels, agriculture and land clearing. All of these factors are caused by human activity in which we can possibly control it, thus we could ultimately decrease the impact that we have on the environment. However, it is not that easy, as individuals we are very ignorant in our belief that one single individual can make an impact on the environment. In the book, State of Fear, by Michael Crichton, the characters Peter and Jennifer are discussing the graphs in detail. They begin discussing a similar graph as the one shown below. You can begin to see that from 1940 to 1970 the global temperature is actually decreasing. The graph below illustrates that while the level of carbon dioxide rose constantly, the temperature did not. While it is proven that as the level of carbon dioxide increases, as does the temperature of the earth. But during 1940-1970, it is the exact opposite. As the carbon dioxide increases at a steady rate, the global temperature rose, then fell and then rose again. Therefore, this proves that it is not necessarily true that when the level of carbon dioxide increases as does the global temperature. The global temperature fluctuates, but does not steadily increase.

The US, is known to have the most accurate and well maintained network of weather stations worldwide. The graph above represents the U.S temperature between 1880 and 2000. During this time the temperature has only increases one third of a degree in a hundred and twenty years. This graph indicates that the temperature is increasing from the last thirty years; however it went down from the previous thirty years. Therefore, this graph illustrates that the U.S temperatures are not increasing as dramatically as the rest of the world. While global warming may be apparent in other parts of the world, it is not increasing at a dramatic rate in the U.S, therefore making global warming not as apparent to the U.S as the rest of the world.

The chart from Thunder Bay, Ontario, indicates that the mean temperature has been both increasing and decreasing steadily since the 1940s. The graph shows that within the last 20 years the temperature has been at its highest. Between the years 1940 and 1980 the temperatures has been increasing, but it has also been decreasing. In the year 1950, Thunder Bay saw some of the lowest temperatures recorded ever. The lowest temperature occurred two more times between the years 1960 and 1980. Between 1980 and 1990 the temperature was at its highest, and then in the next two years it gradually began to decrease.

The graph from Winnipeg, Manitoba, indicates that the temperatures have been increasing since 1880. The graph illustrates that in 1930, the temperature was at its highest. The temperature rose again to its highest between 1980 and 2000. However, at the same time the temperature has been decreasing. Some of the lowest temperatures were recorded between 1950 and 2000. Therefore, while the temperatures have been steadily increasing, they have also been decreasing. It is odd that the temperature has both increased majorly, but has also dropped to lower temperatures.

The graph for Edmonton, Alberta indicates that one of the highest mean temperatures was between 1880 and 1900. This indicates that the temperature was increasing over one hundred years ago. Between 1880 and 1940 the temperature dropped and then increased again. Between 1940 and 1960 there was a great dropped in temperature where it dropped to its lowest. However, it then started to gradually increase. While it is apparent that there is a warming trend, temperatures are also decreasing. They are not constantly increasing, they are increasing one year, and decreasing the next year. During the years 1960 and 2000, temperatures have increased greatly, however this is when industrialization was at its highest. The temperatures seem to be only slightly higher than the temperatures from the early 1900s. As scientists are educating and raising more awareness about global warming there are several facts that dont seem to add up. It is stated in the book State of Fear that due to a rise in industrialization, temperatures have been increasing since the early 1940s. However during 1940 and 1960 there was the lowest temperature that has been recorded.

As shown in the graph above, Puerto Limon went through a severe cooling trend within the last forty years. In 1970 there was the lowest temperature that was recorded and temperatures remained constant for the next thirty years. Between 1960 and 1970 there was a drop from one of the highest temperatures recorded around 26.4 and dropped to 25.0. The temperatures have not increased greatly and are fluctuation between 24 and 26; therefore they are not steadily increasing. They are fluctuating between average temperatures and imply a cooling trend. This graph is similar to the global average temperature graph as they both represent a cooling trend. While temperatures have increased in Puerto Limon, they are ultimately decreasing.

The graph from Miami, Florida indicates that temperatures are steadily increasing, but not by much. Temperatures between 1900 and 1940 were ranging from 23 degrees to 24. Therefore, between forty years, the temperature only increased one degree Celsius. This is not an extreme increase in temperatures. Between 1960 and the current year of 2011, where industrialization is known to be at its highest, there was only an increase of about 1.5 degree Celsius. Therefore, as stated before, the temperatures are increasing, but not by much. It will take several years before temperatures reach a dangerous level. They are increasing, but at a slow rate.

The graph for Caracas/La Carlota indicates that the temperatures began decreasing in between 1880 and 1940. The average temperature ranged from 18 to 21 degrees Celsius. Within 70 years the temperature only increased 4 degrees Celsius which equals out to be 0.05 degrees Celsius each year for seventy years. This is a very small increase. Between 1970 and 2011 temperatures have averaged from 20.5 to 25. There has been a 4.5 degree Celsius increase in the last 41 years. That averages out to be an increase of 0.11 degrees Celsius per year. When interpreting these graphs, it is apparent that while the temperatures are increasing, they are not increasing at a great rate or speed. It almost seems as if we will not see any consequences of global warming in our lifetime.

The graph from Punta Arenas, Chile, indicates that there is not quite a warming trend; however, temperatures seem to be decreasing. Between 1880 and 1960 temperatures ranged from 5 to 8 degrees Celsius. While the temperatures reached both a high and a low. Between 1960 and 2000, temperatures began decreasing, as the mean temperature ranged from 5 to 7 degrees Celsius. The average temperature is decreasing in Punta Arenas.

If I lived in Punta Arenas my whole life, I would disagree that there is a warming trend. As shown in the graph for Punta Arenas, temperatures are decreasing. Within the last 60 years, when industrialization is at its highest, the temperatures in Punta Arenas were at its lowest. Therefore, if I lived in Punta Arenas my whole life I would disagree with the warming trend, as it shows in data that in the recent years the temperatures have been the lowest. Punta Arenas highest temperature was recorded in the early 1900s, when global warming was not even a concern. However, if I lived in Miami, Florida, I would agree that there might be a slight warming trend. While the temperature is not rapidly increasing, the temperature is steadily rising. There may not be any visible consequences of the warming trend in the next few years as it could possibly take several years before we do see any consequences. The data from 1984 to 2010 in Miami shows that there is a warming trend. Temperatures are increasing quite rapidly, and are remaining at a constant high temperature. However, if I were to manipulate the results from 1900 and 1940, there would imply that there is a cooling trend. When looking at the graphs from Edmonton, Alberta, there is an apparent trend of the average temperatures increasing one year and decreasing the next. The temperatures seem to fluctuate between high and low annually. It is also apparent that there could be a cooling trend between 1940 and 1960 as temperature dropped significantly. Since 1980, Winnipeg has been experiencing a warming trend. While temperatures did drop relatively low, Winnipegs temperature does seem to be increasing according to the data

from the graph. Winnipeg experienced two significant spikes, one low spike in 1997, and a high spike in 1999. With only two years between the spikes I do believe that the spikes have a great significance.

I believe that global warming is a natural process that the earth is going through. I believe that it is inevitable, and will occur whether we interfere or not. However, while I do believe it is natural, I also think it is extremely important that we reduce our impact on the environment. After visiting China for ten days, I truly began to see what we are doing to our planet. The air was extremely smoggy, and the pollution was extreme. There was garbage on the ground, on the roads and in between houses. I believe that if should improve the environment and can do so by simply recycling. I believe that we should start with countries that have high populations like China and try to reduce their impact. I believe that global warming effects tourism greatly. I believe that it can both help the environment and hurt it. Sustainable development and ecotourism are affecting tourism and the environment in a positive way, as many people want to preserve the wilderness and eco system. Tourists are showing interests in viewing nature in its natural habitat. However, tourists can also affect the environment in a negative way. Often when tourists visit different countries they believe that not all rules apply to them and are not aware of them. Simply by travelling by plane to destinations is bad for the environment. Therefore as tourism increases, and as more people start travelling, the more planes are needed, and the more fuel is being burnt. Everyone has made a contribution to warming temperatures, whether it be by driving a car, or even as simple as heating your home. Therefore, I believe that everyone contributes to global warming, whether they are tourists or not.

1) We know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty I agree 100% with this statement. I believe that we know very minimal about how the earth works. While over the last few centuries we have made far advancements concerning global warming, however we still are very uneducated and ignorant regarding how to conserve and protect the earth. I do believe that the environment is capable of repairing itself, and rising temperatures is just a process that the earth is going through to protect and repair itself. There are several theories and presumption about what global warming is, but I believe that we have no idea what will occur and we do not know of any solutions that will help fix the earth. While I do believe that we can aid and slow down the process of global warming by recycling and reducing our impact I think that global warming will occur regardless. We can reduce our impact that we have on the environment which will result in slowing down the rising temperatures; I do believe that we, as human beings will not be able to stop it in our lifetime. Global warming is the same as the ice age, however instead of the earth freezing, it is getting progressively warmer. It is a gradual process that is happening, and as humans we have no control over the earths temperature. It will continue to rise because the whole world is producing a high amount of greenhouse gases. Global warming will occur whether we stop the producing high amounts of greenhouse gases or not. The earth itself is getting warmer and we have very minimal control over it.

However, after visiting China for ten days I do believe that we need to decrease our production of greenhouse gases. Being in Beijing for three days was horrendous for my body. There was such a high amount of pollution that on most nights I was not even able to see the moon, let alone the sun during daytime. The sky was filled with grey smog that covered the great beauty of both the sun and the moon. In a city with eight million people I got to see firsthand the effect of global warming and pollution. I think that the first step we need to do to slow down the process of global warming is to make sure that every country is on board with it. China produces an extreme amount of pollution, and by possibly cutting the pollution in half we could potentially slow down the process. 2) Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing and human activity is the probable cause. I agree with this statement. In the 21st century, industrialization is at its highest. In every country in the world we are production a great amount of pollution. Through the use of cars, trains, planes, and the burning of fossil fuels we produce a great amount of green house gases. Human activity is the definite cause to the increase of carbon dioxide. As a society we are very ignorant towards global warming. Most people think that they dont contribute to global warming, and that there will be no difference if they try to reduce their contributions to it or not. We have a very ignorant view on global warming and that must change in order to reduce the impact of global warming. 3) We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four hundred year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age. I agree that we are in the midst of a natural warming trend that began since 1850. As shown in the graphs from different areas it is apparent that the temperature is gradually

increasing. However, I do believe that we have just emerged from the Little Ice Age because if you look at temperatures prior to the 20 th century it is very apparent that temperatures were decreasing and at its lowest. Therefore, if we went through a little ice age, then I believe that the earth is just warming itself up in a natural process. The earth is capable earth of cooling itself off through an ice age, and then I believe that it is possible that the earth is warming itself up. Therefore the rise in temperatures is just a natural process that the earth is going through to protect and preserve itself. 4) Nobody knows how much of the current warming trend might be a natural phenomenon. As stated above, I believe that the warming trend is a natural process that the earth is going through. As seen before with the natural occurrence of the ice age, the warming trend is the opposite of the ice age, instead of getting colder it is getting warmer. I do believe that human activity does play a vital role in the warming of the temperature however; I think it is also going through a natural process of repairing itself. While we do know a lot about the earth, there is still so much more that is unknown, therefore I believe that we do not know if global warming is the cause of warming temperatures or if its natural. 5) Nobody knows how much of the warming trend might be man-made While I do believe that the warming trend is a natural occurrence, I believe that human activity is one of the main causes of the rising temperatures. However, I dont think that it is done on purpose. Our society is extremely dependent on some of the leading causes of global warming. The use of cars, electricity from coal fired power and heating homes are some of the main source of burning fossil fuels. Unintentionally we are contributing extremely to global warming and the only way to reduce our impact is to burn less fossil fuel emission. Also, the rise in

population affects global warming as people are using for fossil fuel for heat and transportation. I believe that human activity contributes to global warming, but I do not think it is the sole contribution. 6) Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows. But if I had to guess- the only thing anyone is doing, really- I would guess the increase will be 0.812436 degrees C. There is no evidence that my guess about the state of the world one hundred years from now is any better or worse than anyone else. (We cant assess the future, nor can we predict it. These are euphemisms. We can only guess. An informed guess is just a guess. I agree that nobody knows how much warming will occur within the next century. I think that the temperatures will increase, but gradually. There wont be an extreme increase instantly, but over time it will progress. At this point we can only make assumptions and estimates on how much the temperature will increase. There is still a lot to learn about global warming, as I dont believe it is possible to know everything about the earth. There is still a lot of scepticism and assumptions regarding both the earth and global warming, therefore, I believe that not every fact that is stated about global warming is accurate. 7) I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principle human effect will come from land use, and the atmospheric component will be minor. I agree that the surface warming will be a result of human activity. As the population keeps growing we are burning a high amount of fossil fuels. With the population increasing we will be burning more fossil fuels, thus possibly resulting in temperatures increasing. There are many

factors that contribute to global warming, but I do believe that human activity is one of the main causes. Industrialization is at its highest; almost every single household owns one car, if not more. There are many ways to reduce the impact on the earth, however, still not many people recycle, let alone reduce their impact. We live in a world where people are ignorant and controlled by technology; we have become an extremely lazy society. In many peoples mind, recycling is too much effort, and instead would rather not do it. Most people think and act this way because they know that in their lifetime they will ultimately not end up dealing with the consequences of global warming. Most people think in the present rather than the future. They see no abrupt consequences; therefore will continue their ignorant actions. 8) Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better I agree, I think that if we are making expensive policy decisions we should be able to see what the future holds for an extra ten years. If we are making drastic decisions regarding the next ten years, we should know for sure what the outcomes and future holds. The earth is constantly changing, therefore, perhaps in the next ten years there will be an increase in temperatures, while in twenty years there may be a drop in temperatures. All possible facts should be known, or at least have an assumption before drastic decisions are made. There should be some accuracy and there should be some certainty to know what the money is being used for. 9) I think for anyone to believe in impending resource scarcity, after two hundred years of such false alarms, is kind of weird. I don't know whether such a belief today is best ascribed to ignorance of history, sclerotic dogmatism, unhealthy love of Malthus, or simple pigheadedness, but it is evidently a hardly perennial in human calculation.

Growing up with parents that were greatly involved with the mining industry, I agree with this statement that there are sufficient resources available. I believe that the earth has plenty of resources, and we have yet to hit the maximum allowance. I still believe that there are resources that no one has discovered yet, and within the next few years we will discover and learn more. I also believe that there is a great amount of resources that have yet to be touched in the Arctic I believe that there is no possible way that all the resources have been extracted and that there is still a great amount left to be extracted. I do not believe that there will be an insufficient amount of resources any time soon. Perhaps in futures years it may occur that we could possibly start running out of resources, but I believe by then we could possibly even have alternative solutions. Therefore I do not see this as a great concern at the moment. We have the whole Arctic yet to explore and to start using resources from there. 10) There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fear mongers. So far as I know, nobody had to ban horse transportation in the early twentieth century. I agree that we will eventually shift away from fossil fuels, however, not anytime soon. While there is great fear over global warming, I do not think that it has come to an extreme where people will switch over from fossil fuels. There is progression towards shifting away from fossil fuels with hybrid cars. While we are making progress, this is only a simple step in the process of shifting away from fossil fuels. Also, not many people have the desire to have a hybrid car, many people still believe that the the bigger, the better and are still driving around in their hummers. I think that a shift will eventually come, but it is going to take a lot of time and effort and ultimately money.

11) I suspect the people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them. I agree, I dont think that we have to worry about the people of 2100. We have come so far with technology and we can only progress from here. By 2100, I believe that we will be so far advanced in everything that we should worry more about the present than the future. Everyday new technologies and discoveries are being made and we are only beginning. There is so much more to discover and to learn about the earth and about science. Within the next 90 years I believe that we might find a temporary solution to aid global warming. People are getting more educated and raising more awareness, and I believe that people of 2100 will be far more educated than we are regarding global warming. 12) The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed. Public education is completely necessary and needed because we are now living in a state of fear. People are getting worried and concerned about global warming which is putting a crimp on human spirit. I also believe that it could potentially be an invitation to totalitarianism. As Machiavelli once stated, it is better to be feared than loved. I believe that when people are concerned and scared, that is when problems occur. Drastic decisions will be made, and therefore can result in total chaos. I believe that public education is the only way to properly educate people about the truth about global warming. Through public education they can instate a sense of awareness instead of state of fear. Scare tactics, while might be a good way to ensure results and action, it is not the proper way to solve problems and to educate the public. There are more ethical ways to educate the world about global warming without instilling fear in everyone. While I believe it is severely important to educate the young about

global warming, I also believe that we should educate the elderly as well. Since global warming is a fairly new issue, a lot of people that are older do not know what they can to reduce their impact. I believe that the youth of today are far more educated on global warming then the older generation. Therefore, while I still believe that it is important to educate the young, I believe that we should also concentrate on the old. As global warming is becoming more of an issue, there should be more public awareness than there already is. While I do not believe that we should be promoting fear, I think that we should be promoting and raising awareness of the truths about global warming.

13) I conclude that most environmental "principles" (such as sustainable development or the precautionary principle) have the effect of preserving the economic advantages of the West and thus constitute modern imperialism toward the develop ping world. It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution." I completely agree with this statement. While it is essential that the West should develop environmental principles, the West would have more of an economic advantage over the developing worlds than it already has. The developed world would be doing it for their advantage, and would not be aiding the developing world. It would solely be for personal benefit of their country and would not be doing any good for the developing worlds. I believe that before developing worlds begin to focus on sustainable development and environmental principles that they should focus on issues like hunger, poverty and diseases that most developing countries face. By imposing modern imperialism, developed countries and violating and taking advantage of peoples basic human rights. This denies those economic opportunities and the chance to better their countries and help combat diseases.

14) The precautionary principle, properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh. When the precautionary principle is applied it does become self contradictory. The principle states that if an action or a policy has a risk of causing harm to either the public or the environment they must stop it, even if there is scientific knowledge lacking. The precautionary principle has a social responsibility in which they must protect the public from exposure to harm. The only way that the procedure can continue is if there is scientific evidence that there will be no harm. Therefore, because there is no probability to the risk and it is uncertain, then it does not matter whether the science backing it up is valid or not. Even if the science has only a small possibility of being right, the principle will apply. 15) I believe people are well intentioned. But I have great respect for the corrosive influence of bias, systematic distortions of thought, the power of rationalization, the guises of selfinterest, and the inevitability of unintended consequences. I do agree that people are well intentions, while the consequences of their intentions may result in negativity; however I think that most people are out to do well. Regarding global warming, I believe that people do have good intentions and want to help the environment, but I believe that people do not know how to help. I also believe that people do not want to contribute to reducing global warming as they believe that they will not see the consequences of global warming. Therefore they have no motivation or worry to reduce their impact as it does not concern them. However, they do not realize that their actions will have consequences, and it may not affect them but will potentially affect the future generation. People are too ignorant and biased to change their views or to even change their ways.

16) I have more respect for people who change their views after acquiring new information than for those who cling to views they held thirty years ago. The world changes, Ideologues and zealots don't. Before I read State of Fear, I was a firm believer in global warming. I watched An Inconvenient Truth over ten times, and was convinced that everything that was stated about global warming was in fact true. I read several articles on global warming and was convinced that it was already happening and that if we did not do something right away that we would have to deal with the consequences. State of Fear really opened my eyes and I began to doubt global warming. While I understand that State of Fear is fiction, the book gave me a sense of awareness and doubt towards global warming. After reading it I was convinced that global warming is manmade and their main motivation is money. As I believe that money ultimately rules the world, this began to make sense. By instilling fear into people, the more money people will contribute. An issue as vast as global warming is a perfect opportunity to receive money and to threaten people and scare them about the future. I believe that this is the same thing that they have done with the Y2K, 2012 and many more. By creating fear, people start to panic and they will do anything to stop it. People will donate lots of money if they are constantly living in a state of fear. Since reading State of Fear, I have changed my views. While I was once a believer of global warming, I am now not. People who are biased and disregard new information and are stuck living in their own world will only get so far. There are many people who are stubborn and wont change their views, and have no interest in learning about new information. New information about the world is being discovered every day, and there is no possible way that we know everything about it. I am willing to accept new information and also willing to change my views.

17) In the thirty-five-odd years since the environmental movement came into existence, science has undergone a major revolution. This revolution has brought new understanding of nonlinear dynamics, complex systems, chaos theory, and catastrophe theory. It has transformed the way we think about evolution and ecology. Yet these nolonger-new ideas have hardly penetrated the thinking of environmental activists, which seems oddly fixed in the concepts and rhetoric of the 1970's I disagree with this, as I believe that environmental activists are changing their views and adapting to new information. I believe that there has been improvement since the Chipko Movement. There is a greater concern and awareness for going green and sustainable development and environmental activists are promoting new ways to help global warming. I disagree with the environmental activists being stuck in the 1970s as I believe that we have made a progress. There are new concepts being developed every day, and environmental activities are adapting and promoting new concepts.

18) We haven't the foggiest notion how to preserve what we term "wilderness and we had better study it in the field and learn how to do so. I see no evidence that we are conducting such research in a humble, rational and systematic way. I therefore hold little hope for wilderness management in the twenty-first century. I blame environmental organizations every bit as much as developers and strip miners. There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence. While I dont necessarily agree with this statement, as I believe that there is quite a lot being done to preserve wilderness. While there could be more effort and emphasis put on preserving and protecting the wilderness, I believe that we are progressing gradually. We may not be progressing at great speed, however, we are making a bit of a progress. Organizations such as World Wildlife Fund and others are raising awareness about preserving wilderness, and protecting endangered species. While I believe that there is more that should be and can be done, I think we are well on our way. While I also believe

that we do not know how to preserve wilderness, just as we do not know how to preserve and protect the earth. The only way that we will learn how to do so is by trying. We are making great efforts in preserving national parks and areas and often animals. We have made a great shift towards ecotourism which greatly effects preserving wilderness in a positive way. I believe that we have come a long way from before and that while we still have much to learn, we are making an effort to preserve both the land and help protect the animals.

19) We cannot hope to manage a complex system such as the environment through litigation. We can only change its state temporarily --- usually by preventing something --- with eventual results that we cannot predict and ultimately cannot control. I believe that it would not be possible to manage the environment through litigation. We have to do what is best for the environment, and through litigation I do not believe that would happen. I agree that we can only change a state temporarily and that we can possibly prevent global warming, however we have no control over how the earth works. As I believe that global warming is a natural process I do not think that we will ever be able to control global warming. It will happen whether we interfere or not. Global warming is out of control and we do not know anything that can and will happen due to global warming. The only thing that we can do as a society is reduce our impact by recycling and using renewable sources. This will not stop global warming, but could reduce the impact. Lawsuits, proceedings and court cases will only bring negative influence on global warming, and I really believe that it is unnecessary. I think that global warming should be an environmental cause and should not have to get the law involved constantly. Global warming should be an issue about saving the earth and should not be focused on money.

20) Nothing is more inherently political than our shared physical environment, and nothing is more ill served by allegiance to a single political party. Precisely because the environment is shared it cannot be managed by one faction according to its own economic or aesthetic preferences. Sooner or later, the opposing faction will take power, and previous policies will be reversed. Stable management of the environment requires recognition that all preferences have their place: snowmobilers and fly fisherman, dirt bikers and hikers, developers and preservationists. These preferences are at odds, and their incompatibility cannot be avoided. But resolving incompatible goals is a true function of politics. I believe that there needs to be effort put it by all political parties, environmental organizations, government and corporations. We have to be able to accommodate everyone including both preservationists and developers. They need to be able to work together as a team in order to find solutions that work for both parties. We need to start focusing on the earth as a whole, and start doing what is best to preserve the earth. We can no longer afford to be selfish and must start to take action in order to see improvements. 21) We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware whom they are working for. Those who fund research --- whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization --- always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass. I agree with this statement. After reading State of Fear, I believe that a lot of the data can be influenced depending on who is funding the project. Graphs and data can be manipulated to show the results that they want to show the public. Therefore, several of the graphs concerning global warming I do not believe because they all could be manipulated in some way. I agree that there should be a third party in which scientists should be funded by so that results are actually factual and are not manipulated in any way. I believe that this is a concerning issue as false data is being presented. Not only is it not factual results, but it is also unethical. Data should be left alone, and not manipulated to either support or go against a statement. It is very

unethical and morally wrong. Data is data, and should be presented as it is found, and not interfered with. It is very unethical of these scientists to do so, and I believe that consequences should be made for those who manipulate data. Manipulating data is not science; they are providing false data and therefore should not even be a scientist in the first place. Parties should fund scientist for the right reasons, and should not be able to influence or manipulate results.

22) I am certain there is too much certainty in the world. While I agree that there is too much certainty in the world, there is also too much ignorance, biased and negativity in the world. People are both uneducated and ignorant towards global warming. While there are many people who support global warming, many people are not even aware of what global warming. While they may have their assumption, they dont know the consequences as well as how to reduce their impact. People are also very set in their ways, and see no need to change their habits to assist in reducing their impact towards global warming. Therefore, people are still not recycling, reducing or reusing. They are stuck in their habits and see no real reason to change out of it. There are also several people who are certain and believe everything they have heard about global warming. A few years ago, before researching global warming and before reading State of Fear, I was one of those certain people. Everything I read or watched concerning global warming I took as the truth. However, I have now opened my eyes and realized that not everything that is on the news, or published in an article is factual. People are very much set in their ways, and do not like to be told they are wrong. Therefore, I believe that when global warming first became an issue, people started believing it right away. Even though it continues to be proved as false, people

are so certain that global warming is happening that they will not even look at a second opinion. As stated above, I do believe that global warming is an issue, but I do not think that it is as extreme as it is portrayed in the media. I think that the media likes to exaggerate global warming and to make it seem more threatening than it is. Not only do they want to make it seem more threatening but they also want people to be scared of it, and they want people to believe that negative consequences will happen right away. While I believe that global warming will take a very slow, gradual progress. I think that we might not even see the effects of global warming in our lifetime. Global warming will not happen overnight, it is going to take time, and it could be a couple of hundred years before anything drastic will even happen. Global warming is a natural process that the earth is going through to repair itself; I do not believe that tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes and several other disasters are linked to global warming. They are natural disasters, therefore will occur and have been occurring without the aid of global warming. 23) I personally experience a profound pleasure being in nature. My happiest days each year are those I spend in wilderness. I wish natural environments to be preserved for future generations. I am not satisfied they will be preserved in sufficient quantities, or with sufficient skill. I conclude that the "exploiters of the environment" include environmental organizations, government organizations, and big business. All have equally dismal track records. I agree, and I hope that the natural environment will be preserved for future generations. It is up to our current generation to make it happen. We must reduce our impact and look for alternative resources in order to preserve the environment. Unfortunately, this might not be able to occur during our lifetime, but hopefully within the next generations they will become more motivated and encouraged to reduce the impact on global warming and preserve the environment. Through the government, corporations and political aspects, I believe that we will

be able to find solutions to global warming. We may not be able to prevent it, but we may be able to temporarily fix it. I believe that government organizations, environmental organizations, businesses and the population need to work together and solve this dilemma. We have come a long way in science and in technology and I believe that anything is possible. We need to work together, and by doing so we can find solutions.

I agree with the author of Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of Americas First National Park, when he states that the story of Yellowstone provides an opportunity to show how man can work in harmony with nature, not opposed to it. I believe that it was a great opportunity to learn how to preserve nature and view animals in their natural state. I believe that it was also necessary that there should be no human interference. By killing off the predators we are damaging the food chain and circle of life. Animals have learned to survive for thousands of years without human interference; therefore, I believe that when it comes to animals that some of them should just be left alone in their natural state. I also believe that Yellowstone is a prime example on how to work with animals and preserve their natural habitat. While they did encounter several errors, I believe that the not only the park learned from their mistakes, but so did the whole world. Yellowstone gave several other parks a prime example on not what to do, and currently are an example on how to work with animals. They have both the positive and negative side of the park, and learned to deal with their mistakes. While their mistakes were unfortunately resulted in the death of animals they currently know what they did wrong and how to fix it.

The management plan for Manuel Antonio National Park was enforced because there was beginning to be too much pollution from surrounding hotels and cars, and harmful interactions between humans and wildlife. The management plan was introduced in order to preserve nature. The government began to implement procedures in which it limited the number of visitors to 600 people per day, camping is prohibited, and the park is closed on Mondays. I do believe that implanting the management plan for national parks could potentially reduce the impact on global warming. The management plan was implemented because there were too many people visiting the park and it was causing too much pollution. By putting a restriction on the number of people that are allowed to visit the park, minimizes pollution that people may potentially cause. This will ultimately decrease the impact that Costa Rica has on global warming. Costa Rica is also infamous for their ecotourism, and I believe that more travel destinations need to take this approach to try and preserve somewhat of their nature and focus more on preserving and less on building more resorts. I do believe that Costa Rica has the best approach and are well on their way towards reducing their impact on global warming. Through a simple step such as implementing a management plan they are contributing greatly to the environment. Tourist will travel regardless of global warming or not, and ecotourism give tourists an option, and while it is very educational, it also helps improve the environment.

After thinking about it, I disagree that there is global warming