Global warmingBy Carmella Fitzpatrick

In July of 2016, I went to Glacier National Park because I heard the glacier is melting and if I want to see its beauty, I should do it now. Well, much to my disappointment, there wasn’t much left to it to enjoy. The pictures I have seen of the glacier show more beauty and splendor than what is now left of it. So instead of staying there for two weeks, I stayed one week and left for Yellowstone, which has a different kind of splendor of its own.

What had surprised me along the way was that when I would mention global warming people would say, “No it’s just the Earth taking care of herself.”

And yes, I will get a little drastic here. I feel to some degree that Mother Earth could be taking care of herself by preparing to eliminate most of us for hurting her so badly. Then whoever survives the tragedy will get into the mantra of reproduction to survive and try once again to spiritually coexist with Earth.

I have been told that I am believing lies, so I have commenced to look to the source of these theories. First, I came up with the Environmental Defense Fund, which says that humans are 95 percent responsible for global warming. The skeptics around me pointed out that by virtue of the name it was a funded organization whose whole purpose is to defend the environment in some way.

So then I looked into the Union of Concerned Scientists. Their statement is, “Climate changes are grounded in observable evidence and reasonable inference, so they can be regarded as factual.” So I believe this statement may be under attack because of its use of the word “inference.” Yet they are saying “through observation.” Isn’t that a form of study? They go on to explain that heat is trapped in the atmosphere by several known gases, that the concentration of these gases has been increasing throughout the Industrial Age, and that the average global temperature has risen in response. I agree! It sounds like a reasonable explanation.

What was frustrating to me was that they also say, “These findings are well-supported by extensive research in the fields of physics, chemistry, geology, biology and meteorology.” Yet their website was sorely missing the source of these extensive studies, for which I have been searching for to prove to my skeptical associates. This group consists of a mechanical engineer, a couple of energy analysts, a climate analyst, a state policy analyst, one who has a Ph.D. in environmental social sciences, all of whom focus on clean energy.

I then decided to converse with people on the web where oddly enough I received a source page from a person that totally confused me. He insisted that the media are reading it wrong and are not taking into perspective the scientists who have not made a reply to the survey and that they are not mathematically added to the quotient, therefore it is not a 97percent agreement, and he rambled a figure of 5 percent instead. He also said the survey was asking them whether or not to agree to their own findings, referring to it as an oxymoron.

Personally, I was thrilled that someone finally gave me a study to review. Although I am not adept in actuarial science, am not a mathematician, and found it a bit confusing, I was able to see the 97 percent the media is talking about and the inference this person on the web was talking about as well.

The section I would like to quote from it is this: “There is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists agree that the earth is warming due to human activity.” That is primarily why I have been searching for the actual studies of these scientists so the public can be more aware. Putting the reference on websites would certainly help!

Change is good! Yet it is hard for people to change. And that is why for some it is more comfortable to just disagree. It’s like when I bought a solar battery charger that was sitting on the shelf so long that the box was dusty and a salesman came up and told me that the electrical ones are better. I still bought it, even though it cost $40 more and has far surpassed a plug-in.

As I see it, whether or not there is proof in global warming, there is nothing wrong with going with a new form of energy! Especially when the earth is becoming depleted of the fossil fuels needed for our present source of energy and power plants are endangering us with the use of nuclear plants. What is wrong with being safe about it and going with the flow of change? It’s time. Don’t you agree?

Articles related to “Global warming”

Exploring our connection to the Earth

Climate Alarmism: Statism’s new clothes

Letter to the Editor: Citizens’ Climate Lobby encourages ethical tragedy

Facebook Comments