The unknown author of the article “Global warming and the undead” believes that global warming is only a money grab by elitists. He or she claims that science is corrupt, and that since the government pays for what is researched and publicized, the government’s preoccupations will be reflected in the science. The author has the idea that the concept of global warming was not intended to be a joke to see how many people would believe it, but was created so the public would pour billions of dollars into research. He or she also argues that global warming has no scientific facts or evidence proving it’s real, and is only continued to be a public worldwide issue because of fear. The speaker believes that people are scared of the possibilities of global warming, and don’t have the education to research it themselves, so they will believe whatever the scientists tell them. The author believes that the media is the method through which the conspiracy is spread. They mention that global warming is believed by millions, if not billions, of people because of the media. The media is very powerful and often biased, but even without it there is evidence of global warming we can all notice.
The main focus of this article is that global warming does not exist. There is only one piece of evidence offered that this is true, and it is not very scientifically sound. The author says that global warming isn’t plausible because the atmosphere is 97% water vapour that traps heat, and humans are only responsible for 3% of the atmospheric cover. It does not seem like strong enough evidence to completely demolish the concept of global warming, especially because the 3% we are responsible for might be a tipping point. The author is also hypocritical because before stating this evidence, a sentence says where they got this information, the internet. In a following paragraph, the author talks about how you shouldn’t believe everything you read on the internet, and that anyone can post information, whether it be correct or incorrect. This contradicts the validity of the one piece of evidence the writer gives. At first he or she states that “global warming can be rebutted by anyone who does even a small amount of research [on the internet]” and then says that global warmists have constructed their arguments over the years, and plenty of this information is on Google. If the author believes that everything on Google ‘global warmists’ have written is a series of well thought-out lies by the government, how can he or she say that the information they searched on the internet is any more valid? If the writer had some kind of tested and observed evidence stating that ice caps aren’t actually melting, or that the sea-levels aren’t rising, due to glaciers melting, then they would have a stronger basis for their argument. In actual fact, evidence shows that global average sea level rising rate is 3.1 mm/year, which the author failed to mention. This is another problem about this article, there is clear evidence that there is some environmental change happening to the Earth, and the author doesn’t acknowledge it at all. It would be a good article if the author had his or her own hypothesis about what is happening to the Earth, or if he or she could provide some other kind of reason the water levels are rising. It seems as though the author is closed-minded and refuses to take in information that conflicts with his or her argument.
The author then talks about how the UN held a two week biodiversity convention. The UN wanted money to help developing countries save nature, because more and more species are going extinct and the developing countries typically are the most biologically diverse. The author followed that paragraph saying that if global warming stops working as a cash grab, the UN is prepared to initiate plan B, saving biodiversity. This part of the article does not really belong with the rest of it, because it is not completely clear how the two topics global warming and biodiversity are related. The UN is a global organization that does not focus on just one issue, it works on different issues it finds important. Biodiversity is another important problem that the UN finds necessary to improve, it has nothing to do with the global warming initiative. The author is implying that the UN is completely focused on making money, and that statement is very strong without the proper research and evidence.
After reading and reviewing this article, I feel that the author has strong opinions that shouldn’t be bothered to be read because they have no sound scientific evidence showing that they are in any way true. The author is ignorant to any other ideas other than his or her own, and has two contradicting ideas that invalidate the small amount of reasoning given. The author needs to include not only more evidence, but also needs to open his or her mind to other possibilities, or at least intelligently rebut the other argument.
Reference list:
http://www.thedailybell.com/1514/Global-Warming-and-the-Undead.html
"Global Warming and the Undead." The Daily Bell. Web. 8 Nov. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment