Unanswered [1] / Urgent [0]
 

Home / Research Papers /     

Global Warming: Myth or Reality? Help with outline.


answers: 1
May 25, 2010, 04:34pm   #1
Hello everybody, I was wonder if I can get some help on doing a outline on the following reserch paper on global warming.
Thank you.


Myth or Reality?

The last decades of 20th century are going to be referred to as the time of "environmental/politically correct craze" because during the course of this historical period, the enforces of lefty-wing agenda had succeeded in throwing milliards of dollars in the air, on the account of a variety of purely imaginary technological, environmental and health care-related scares. For example, we all remember public paranoia, associated with Y2K. Some especially 'progressive' activists used to refer to anticipated effects of Y2K as such that would result in the end of the world, as we know it. In her article Technomillennialism: A Subcultural Technomillennialism: A Subcultural Response to the Technological Threat of Y2K, Andrea Tapia states: "Predicted scenarios (on account of Y2K) ranged from a few days of inconvenience, similar to a bad snowstorm, to that of complete global shutdown and resulting chaos" (2003, 483). Yet, on January 1, 2000, it became clear to just about anyone that Y2K was nothing but a sham. As of today, public still remains unaware of what happened to the milliards of dollars, spent by Western governments to mitigate the expected effects of Y2K.
A decade earlier, the anticipated 'end of the world' was being discussed within the context of thinning of ozone layer over Antarctica – thus, resulting in creation of 'ozone holes'. In its turn, the thinning of ozone layer was believed to have been caused by aerosol sprays as such that contain chemical ingredient freon. Within the matter of very short time, after the beginning of 'ozone scare', the freon-containing sprays were prohibiting worldwide. However, this resulted in allowing DuPont Corporation to double its already enormous profits, as the only patent-holder on producing substitutes of freon. In his article A Necessary Apocalypse, available on the website of American Thinker, John Dunn claims: "Ozone depletion did serve a useful Green purpose in drawing public attention to the atmosphere, and confusing people as to exactly what the problem was all about" (2007). By the beginning of nineties, the 'ozone holes' had simply patched themselves up naturally, and as of today – crazed environmentalists try not to talk much about it. Thus, there is clearly defined pattern about how urban myths of modernity come into being and the so-called Global warming is one of those myths.
In 2003, word's major Medias have come up with yet another 'terrifying' news - Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), which within the matter of five years, was supposed to reduce the population of Earth by two. In his article Pandemic Influenza: A Review, Landis MacKellar refers to the 'dangers' of SARS as something self-evident: "The dangers of disease transmission were shown during the SARS epidemic when 16 persons on a single airline flight became ill" (2007, 435). By the year 2005, the funds spent by World Health Organization to fight SARS, amounted to $600.000.000. And yet, the actual number of casualties, caused by SARS from 2003 to 2009, accounts for only 20 individuals worldwide. The tuberculosis alone kills 3 million people annually! Yet, just as it was the case with DuPont Corporation, in time of 'ozone scare', the pharmaceutical lobby in Western countries was quick enough utilize 'SARS scare' to generate huge monetary profits.
Nevertheless, the so-called "Global warming" represents the biggest neo-Liberal sham, up to this date. Just as it was the case with ozone holes, the increase of world climate's average temperature by 0.7 degree Celsius, which had taken place during the course of last century, had being solely attributed to humankind's industrial activities. The theoretical premise behind the concept of Global warming had being intentionally simplified, so that even simple-minded house wives would be able to think of themselves as great experts on 'saving the planet'. The emission of CO2 into planet's atmosphere by world's industries, results in the creation of 'greenhouse effect', when sun's energy does not reflect back into the space, but becomes trapped underneath the layer of greenhouse gases. In its turn, this leads to Earth's atmosphere being excessively heated, which negatively affects population in Third World countries.
In his article Global Warming as a by-Product of the Capitalist Treadmill of Production and Consumption - The Need for an Alternative Global System, Hans Baer states: "Global warming appears to be the primary impetus behind the spread of infectious-borne diseases to environments north and south of the equator and heat waves that threaten the lives and health of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and the sick" (2008, p. 60). For those who are aware of history of previous 'scares', there appears to be nothing unique in the developmental pattern of 'scare of Global warming' – sensational revelations in Medias, supported by references to some obscure (and often non-existent) scientists, followed by 'public outcry', in regards to these revelations, followed by governments spending milliards of dollars to deal with a situation, followed by promoters of 'Global warming' justifying their misuse of funds and revealing more 'shocking details' about an 'impending danger', followed by governments spending even more money to combat purely imaginary evil - and so it goes on and on.
Yet, for those who despite having been subjected to propaganda of political correctness, were still able to retain their ability to assess surrounding reality in terms of logic, the link between Global warming and humankind's industrial activities appears utterly superficial – after all, the eruption of one large volcano emits as much CO2 into the atmosphere as do all coal-operated power plants in the world together, over the period of hundred years.
Therefore, the introduction of Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and its consequential signing by most of world's nations had nothing to do with protection of environment, as many naοve people continue to believe – it is all about money, as usual. According to the Protocol, by 2012 countries-signatories are supposed to reduce their industries' emissions of carbon monoxide by 5%-10%. Thus, under Protocol's executive framework, every country has its own quotas, in regards to the emissions of CO2 – in case the amount of emitted CO2 is being less then quotas allow, countries can sell the remains of their 'legal CO2' to other over-emitting countries for millions and millions of dollars. Through the years 1997-2005, Russia alone was able to generate close to one-milliard dollars out of the thin air, which was smartly invested by Russian oligarchs into purchasing golden toilet pans for their yachts. Thus, Kyoto Protocol appears to be nothing but another initiative of UN's bureaucracy, conspired with world's financial plutocracy, to legitimize the global misuse of finances.
This was exactly the reason why, after having signed the Protocol initially, U.S. and Australia had decided to pull out of it. As it has been rightly pointed out in John Baden and Tim O'Brien's article The Global Warming Myth and its Selfish Defenders: "The Global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically complex and highly emotional... Much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of the political process" (1994). Apparently, as time goes by, more and more of even former supporters of Kyoto Protocol, get to realize the true motivations, behind Protocol's signing.
In his article Global-warming Myths, Hoff Stauffer says: "The debate on global warming is burdened with unfortunate misconceptions that inhibit progress in moving forward. One misconception is that 'draconian measures' would be required to mitigate global warming" (1998, p. 14). Nevertheless, the main problem with Global warming is not that the promoters of environmentalist cause proceed with their agenda little too enthusiastically, but that the whole concept of Global warming is nothing but another scientifically unsubstantiated myth.
The editorial There is no Global Warming, which can be found on the web site of American Policy Center, states: "Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius. In 1936, the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days" (2008). The fact that, during the course of nineties, world climate's average temperature had slightly risen is nothing but a part of what meteorologists refer to as 'global climatic fluctuations'. Throughout the course of known history, planet's climate never ceased being the subject of these fluctuations.
For example, in 13th century A.D., due to Global warming, winery-based agriculture could be found even as far up North as Scotland. Then, in early 14th century, came Global cooling, which is now being referred to by historians as "Little Ice Age" – both: medieval Global warming and medieval Global cooling, were reflective of specifics of solar activity, during this particular period of history. The fact that the years 2008-2010 featured particularly cold winters in the Northern hemisphere, points out to the fact that environmentalist whackos may soon switch from being concerned about Global warming to being concerned about Global cooling.
Even if Global warming, in Media-sponsored context of this word, was to last, it would have to be welcomed, rather than opposed, simply because post-industrial Western countries will be able to benefit from it. In their article Winners and Losers in the Context of Global Change, Karen L. O'Brien and Robin M. Leichenko state: "The most recent evidence suggests that winners from climate change (Global warming) will include the middle and high latitude regions in Northern hemisphere, whereas losers will include marginal lands in Africa and developing countries with low-lying coastal zones" (2003, 97). However, there is nothing new about Third World countries being losers, in geopolitical sense of this word. In fact, if the number of people in Third World countries gets to be reduced, due to Global warming, it will effectively eliminate the problem of these countries' overpopulation – thus, contributing greatly to UN's officially proclaimed agenda of 'eliminating world's hunger'.
Thus, the conclusion of this paper can be summarized as follows: in order for people to understand true motivations behind Global warming-related paranoia, they would have to ask themselves a question – quo bono? (who benefits?). Given the fact that it were specifically the representatives of world's plutocracy, which were able to benefit enormously from previous artificially-induced scares, there can be very little doubt that it is also being the case with Global warming. Thus, the very concept of Global warming, in the form that it is being currently presented to public, is nothing but one among baseless but utterly profitable urban myths of modern times.
milliard million

iselaq:
lefty-wing

I think it'll sound more serious if you write left-wing instead of lefty-wing

As the essay begins, you establish yourself as a conservative thinker, so the conservative readers will think they already know what you mean and the liberals will automatically disagree with you. You can have more credibility if you talk in terms of facts rather than trying to make your argument while simultaneously making a liberal vs. conservative argument.

crazed environmentalists-- again, you seem too judgmental, and this makes you seem less credible. It's as though your political views make it so that you never even consider the possibility that global warming could be real. You write about Y2K and the Antarctica example as though they prove that global warming is a myth... but you can't say that past shams prove current issues to also be shams.

However, there is some very good evidence to support your argument. Nevertheless, when you say something like "crazed environmentalist" you do not seem objective.

I don't know how much truth there is to the global warming idea... I tend to be skeptical... but I would not talk as though I felt confident in my assessment. I'm not qualified! But, I am objective. So... it is better to be more professional and less caustic, I think, when you make this kind of argument. People who want to be taken seriously have to write in a way that shows they have an objective view.

It seems like this: obviously we know some people will try to take advantage of a scare like global warming and seek some of the money going around. Also obviously, we know it can't be good for us to spew all sorts of emissions into the atmosphere as though no harm can come from it. We don't have all the necessary information to determine if the "globe is warming," so we should make arguments based on open-minded consideration rather than making it a matter of personal politics. I think you should remove the references to left and right and try to show that you considered all the evidence.

:-)



Home / Research Papers /

Thread closed ✓