By Alejandro Rangel
Is climate change an existential threat to our planet due to its adverse environmental effects; that is, is there a change in global climate patterns that will destroy our planet and kill us?
It is a worldwide issue that is at the forefront of discussions today and deemed as the world’s most pressing issue. On one side are those who believe it is a real threat to the sustainability of our planet while on the other side are those in denial who only imagine it as a hoax or just a significant uncertain scientific prediction requiring further study.
Climate change is a very serious issue scientifically and politically, so this essay explores generally the opposing points of view on this important subject.
Those arguing climate change is an existential threat assert there is scientific data that proves it is slowly destroying our planet. They claim greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emitted from cars and factories (when reacted with sunlight) cause smog which increases climate temperatures, explaining why our summers have recently been hotter. This claimed change also degrades the ozone layer, resulting in cancer and other terminal illnesses.
Proponents of climate change cite thousands of studies revealing that humans are responsible for all this endangerment and that we (and our fossil fuel usage) are the reasons why our weather has become more unpredictable and a threat to our existence.
On the other hand, climate change skeptics argue climate change is not an existential threat to our planet. For example, there is unavoidable imprecision in the use of weather models for long-range climate forecasts. They claim certain assumptions and weather observations can be cherry-picked to support global warming, ignoring market adjustments and innovation, thus requiring further scientific research.
Many of the alarmists claimed consequences of global warming such as rising sea levels, glacier melting, and increased hurricane activity are not all human activity connected. They also claim worst-case weather modeling scenarios are often used by government and political activists to invoke fear of environmental destruction and death in the public resulting from climate change. In turn, it is also argued that emotional and scientifically questionable conclusions are used to support laws, among other things, to reduce or ban fossil fuel use, and divert attention to negative economic and employment effects.
Lastly, they assert that little effort is made by any organization in the world to separate the impact of the sun on the earth’s temperature as opposed to anything done by man.
Climate change discussion should come together to a common conclusion so that we can flatten the curve.