You are on page 1of 6

Saunders 1

Brian Saunders
Dr. Gabriela Rios
Enc 1102
9 Jun 14
Global Warming: How is the threat of global warming being used to control us?

Global warming has become a hot issue lately as it has been hotly debated by both those that
believe that it's happening and those that don't. With so many potential adverse effects facing
our economy and our environment, the issue of global warming has created a sharp divide
between those who feel the need to do something about it and those who feel that global
warming simply doesn't exist. With such large issues in play, the need to address global
warming or "climate change" is a very important issue in our society and must be dealt with one
way or the other. The following works will give us a look at some of the different affects that
global warming has had and could have on our lives.

Schelling, Thomas C. "Some Economics of Global Warming" The American Economic Review.
Vol.
82, No. 1 (Mar, 1992), pp. 1-14. Print
In Thomas C. Schelling's "Some Economics of Global Warming" he addresses the issues facing
our society because of the changing global climate. He deals with the fact that global warming
doesn't only mean that temperatures will rise but rather that temperatures could swing in an
unfavorable way that will cause terrible economic consequences most likely stemming from
increased agricultural hardships. He says that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are
Saunders 2



increasing at a compounding rate which could mean that if nothing is done the situation could get
so far out of control there will be no chance of reversing it. He goes on to point out that climate
change could have dramatic effect on the world's ocean currents which could bring about abrupt
and severe consequences for us.
While these are all very compelling points and should be taken seriously, I believe that it is
somewhat arrogant to believe that the activity of humans can substantially shift global weather
patterns. If you look at geological records you will find that the Earth's climate has been
perpetually changing for ever since it was created. Last semester while taking an anthropology
class the professor was talking about how shifting climates had played an important role in the
evolution of our species and one day in class while examining ocean level's in the geologic time
table the professor abruptly stated that he thought global warming was a complete farce. His
reasoning for making such a claim was that when you look back through history you can see
much more extreme cases of climate change than we are experiencing now and those changes
were caused mainly by cosmic events and even then took thousands if not millions of years to
come full circle. My main point here is that even if we humans are having an adverse effect on
the climate, why should we really care? By the time we see such an extreme change in the
weather of this planet that makes it uninhabitable to us, I would imagine that we will have
already left earth in search of a new home.

Reppert, Barton. "Global Warming: Congress Still Stalled, States and Cities Act." BioScience.
Vol. 56
No. 10 (October 2006). pp. 800
Saunders 3



In this article by Barton Reppert, the need to get congress to make reforms to emissions laws are
urgently addressed. Reppert states numerous examples of politicians being politicians, citing
what certain members of congress plan to do to stop global warming. "Senators James Jeffords
(IVT) and Barbara Boxer (DCA) introduced the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, a
comparably ambitious bill aimed at reducing global warming pollutants by 80 percent by 2050."
These two politicians have introduced a bill that will reduce world emissions by 80 percent over
the next forty years. This is just one of the many examples that Reppert states in this article of
how politicians on capitol hill are planning to solve the global warming crisis.
"Senators James Jeffords (IVT) and Barbara Boxer (DCA) introduced the Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act, a comparably ambitious bill aimed at reducing global warming
pollutants by 80 percent by 2050." This quote, for me, is in a nutshell why most regular folks
don't take this issue of global warming seriously. First of all to say that we could reduce global
pollutants by 80 percent in forty years is just complete madness. To do this The United States
would have to get other global manufacturing machines like China, Russia, Brazil and India on
board to even get close to that number. Secondly, a big reason why I don't believe that we can
ever truly cut carbon emissions is because those that continue to push the issue of global
warming are continuously seen using huge amounts of natural resources that go far beyond what
your typical American would use. When those in power are going to point their fingers at the
common man and say to be more environmental conscious it would help if they weren't living
lavish lifestyles and riding around in personal aircraft. I can tell you from my personal
experience as a Sergeant of U.S. Marines, that the do as I say, not as I do approach to leadership
strategy is not an effective one. The people who are most concerned about global warming seem
Saunders 4



to only be able to tell others that they must change their ways to stop it and we never really see
any personal responsibility taken on by the leaders of the movement.

Botkin, Daniel B. "Heatstroke: Nature in an Age of Global Warming." BioScience. Vol. 60 No.
10
(2010). pp. 552-553.
In this article the author, Daniel B. Botkin, who has a Ph.D. in Biology and Plant Ecology and
teaches at UC Santa Barbra, examines a book written in 2009 about the effects of global
warming. He points out that in the book, the author Anthony D. Barnosky, makes some factual
mistakes in his writings. For example, "Since 1950, we have approximately doubled the amount
of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere." This is just one of many errors that Botkin points out
and explains how these errors could be very detrimental to the cause to try and slow global
warming.
I completely agree with the way Botkin approaches this book. Science is ever changing
and sometimes what we thought we knew turns out to be completely inaccurate. "For example,
he quotes Stephen Schneider's 1989 speculation that warmer tropical oceans would lead to more
and worse hurricanes, and then writes seventeen years later, in fact, Schneider's scenario proved
overly optimisticwhen Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans. He tells the reader that
global warming caused that destruction. Today, few if any hurricane experts believe that
hurricanes will increase in number or intensity as Schneider had suggested." These are the types
of predictions that given enough time, will become self fulfulling prophecies and will be seen as
"proof" of global warming by some. Botkin cites many examples of the inaccuracies of this book
which have been passed off as undeniable facts and when these mistakes are exposed it can be a
Saunders 5



huge blow to public perception of the matter. Without the support of the masses, any effort to
reduce carbon emissions is destined to fail because if there is no personal incentive for
individuals to cut back on their beloved gas guzzling s.u.v's, why would they do it? Especially if
they find a reason to question the validity of the science behind global warming.

Nesbit, Jeff. "Climate Change, In Real Time." LiveScience. (May 23, 2014)
<www.livescience.com>
In this article the author describes how certain he is that climate change has and is occurring and
that the discussion about it is over. He points out that almost 75 percent of Americans now
believe that climate change is happening and that is important so we can now move on to the task
of doing something about it.
In my opinion this is just another person who has created a problem so he can write about it and
feel important. Again the climate has always been changing and will continue to do so for as
long as the earth exists. The reason that people like this write these types of articles is because it
employs them. If there is no new drama to write about they won't have a job. Same goes for
some scientists. The reason this is important is because everyday working people are going to be
affected by more strict regulations if we allow the government to convince us of this non existent
threat.

Cover, Matt. "EPA Global Warming Regulations Could Send Economy Back Into Recession,
Report
Says." cnsnews.com. (2011). <www.cnsnews.com>
Saunders 6



In this article the author has amassed numerous quotes from members of congress who oppose
tighter emissions regulations. This would imply that contrary to the above article, not everyone
seems to be on board about the legitimacy of global warming. The simple fact is that the EPA is
trying to seize more power than it should have, and must be stopped, this is a good example of
how many Americans feel and I believe that ultimately we will only be hurting ourselves if we
start demanding the use of higher cost and less efficient energy sources.

Ferrara, Peter. "As the Economy Recesses, Obama's Global Warming Delusions are Truly
Cruel."
forbes.com. <www.forbes.com>
On one of the world's leading economic websites, Peter Ferrara absolutely demolishes the sense
that we should be bearing any financial costs of combating "climate change. He cites how the
affects of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are not nearly as high as they had
been in the past and that they aren't really the cause of the very slight shift towards warmer
temperatures we have seen over the last century. The whole point of my arguments against
global warming regulations is that this crisis we have created may not be real but the costs to
combat such a crisis would be very real but even worse, unnecessary.