Signing Off

Let me first start by saying that this year has been the first year I can say I truly enjoyed learning US history. From starting with the difference between empathy and sympathy to a grand finale of the showing of the movie 13 Days this year has certainly held a lot. I think my ability to retain and even discuss history reflects more on Mrs. Lawson's ability to find new ways to teach and engage a classroom full of teenagers, who haven't studied US history since approximately 8th grade. So thank you for that Mrs. Lawson! I miss your class next year. With your help I've learned to look at and write about movies and articles in a more analytical light but still keep my voice within my writing. Our watching of 13 Days is just one example. Even though I may not be writing about it in a full on paper or in a separate blog post I can still say that with Mrs. Lawson's help I was 1) able to see the movie in a positive light, 2) enjoy the movie, and 3) learn more about the political hierarchy in the Kennedy term. I learned that 'DEAFCON2' is a status of the need for protective measures during war time or coming to war. But out of all of what I've said I think it says the most that I remember the first activity we did and it still impacts to this day. I can't help but think about it each time I apply the term in my life. So thank you Mrs. Lawson, you've made my last year of History the best year I've had so far!

An Introspective Look into the Perspectives of Climate Change

To the readers of which this content may concern,

The year is dated 2016 and the world is finding itself amongst some of the most troubling times. There is no shortage of topics to debate and problems to solve in the twenty-first century, and climate change is one of these hotspot debates. Though it has been talked about for more than a decade, climate change, is still a sore spot amongst governments and national groups such as the EU (European Union) and the UN (United Nations). For years summits for the United Nations Climate Change Conference have been occurring to help settle the dust over global warming and how it can be stopped, slowed down, etc. but it not my point to discuss the minutia of a summit like the one in Paris France or even the real politics behind climate change. Instead I intend to bring forth the opinions of those who oppose the popularly held belief that climate change is real and explain the perspectives which they hold and are categorized into.

It would be easiest for myself to start in the category to which I first believed in myself – the skeptic. And though I do not categorize within this group any longer, it is their disbelief in climate change that has sparked many debates over the legitimacy of the science, politics, and media coverage of the topic. Conveniently, through my research I have found a well formulated chart of the most defined categories of skeptics. Some correlate and others seems to have no reference to each other, but they are all commonly linked by their denouncement of global warming in some shape or fashion.

Figure 1. Visible Organization of Sceptics

In brief, the way this chart is organized is from the bottom up. The bottom seven categories serve as the main objects to which skeptics argue against. If a skeptic fights "Trend", they believe that climate change is not actually happening and will sometimes go as far as to say there is an opposing, cooling trend:

"Earth's temperature is currently cooling slightly, ocean heat is declining, global sea-level rise has not accelerated (although the climate models predict that it should) and tropical storm energy is at a thirty-year low. (Carter, 2011, p.39)"

 "Cause" fighting skeptics do accept the theory of climate change and that it is actually occurring but they do not believe that humans are part of the cause. An example of this would be a person claiming that the world is just going through its cycle. They would say that there is nothing abnormal about the current conditions and that eventually it would revert back its lower levels as the earth starts to regulate the greenhouse gases once more. The final disinter on that prong is the "impact" skeptic. These people believe that humans do partially play a role in the rising temperatures but they say we are not the true problem. Common arguments would run along the lines of there being no scientific proof that humans are "causing more extreme weather events. (Rensburg, 2015, p.3)" And that the change being caused by humans is so small that the earth and its inhabitants will adapt "as [they] have always done.(Rensburg, 2015, p.3)" These three skeptics are classified more specifically in a centre group known as 'Evidence' skeptics. This means that these three categories formulate their opinions on evidence, scientific or not. These skeptics are the easiest to argue with because of the nature of their focus. 

Evidence based arguments with 'trend', 'cause', and 'impact' skeptics are considered the easiest to argue because they run on a pyramidal scale. This means that as you digress through an argument the skeptic is likely to change their mind and go from stating that global warming doesn't exist to accepting it as a trend, but remain rooted that humans didn't cause it. Because their argument was weak to begin with they are likely to persuaded by evidence of human affectation, but they will drop to humans not having been the main cause. And upon the revelation that humans are a larger source they will turn to the cost of fixing this problem, and cite it as being too expensive. But in reality most first  world countries like China and the United States, besides being the highest producers of green house gases, would also be the leaders in helping to reduce their industrial carbon footprint. This in itself would reduce their argument to merely just sticking to the idea that climate change isn't actually a problem, but they would have no evidence, forcing them begin picking apart policy and politics of climate change.

Figure 2. A pyramidal formatting of the three Evidence based skeptics

This brings us to the right side of the chart where it becomes much harder to argue with the skeptic. This is due to the fact that they begin to pick apart the policies, decision making, how climate change is handled and the truth of the scientific evidence. It is particularly hard to pick apart these arguments because skeptics and non-skeptics can hold these viewpoints, which gives the skeptic a better ground to fight on. To better illustrate the stances or points which these skeptics might take look into Table 1.

Table 1. A chart of reasoning for climate change Skeptics

Because policy and decision making in itself a topic that causes dichotomy between groups it gives a skeptic the upper hand because the logic behind the logistics of policy making is so muddled. Skeptics thrive on the confusion because in reality their assertions are usually a muddled explanation that utilizes the confusion of uninformed people and the division of groups on political matters. Another matter of controversy that is used against the popular belief is the distortion the importance of global warming by media and money-driven research. 

Skeptical viewpoints have always existed on the opposite side of any popular belief, but skepticism on climate change is particularly controversial because it is a massive problem that encompasses the whole of the world. Form first world countries to third world countries that are beginning their transition into a industrial era, meaning their carbon footprint is going to increase just as US's or China did when they industrialized. And the future to which you will live in I do hope that they will have taken charge and worked to decrease the carbon footprint of the world. And should you have the heart to charge into leading or taking part in this campaign for the earth's health I hope you find this helpful in fighting off the negativity and skeptics of your time. 

References:

1. 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference A wiki article on the on-goings of the UN CCC 

2. Climate Change Scepticism  A scholarly article written by Willem Van Rensburg on the different categories of skeptics. 

3. Carter, 2011 An article originally referenced in a quote that in my letter. Used to offer proper accreditation.