The night sky appears black with small flecks of cerulean encompassing white blotches, each one delicately placed on the canvas that is the sky. Ptolemy looked up to the heavens in a way still common today, and that is with curiosity. Every white blotch, now known as stars; and every circular sphere was a topic of perpetual curiosity and speculation. A keen mind was his. Always searching to know and experience the labyrinth in a paradoxical world. Fervent in his pursuit of Natural Philosophy ergo a paradigm is present between Ptolemy and every scientist today that looks to nature and asks themselves how they too will unravel the mystery it hides. In today’s contemporary world the notion of Global Warming has evolved into a mainstay of American culture. Synonymous terms such as Climate Change have arisen from man’s desire to catalogue, classify and configure the aforesaid into some tangible fact in the abstract. The ensuing short essay will examine varying points of views appertaining to Global warming from which a clearer view of the relative truth shall with a bit of luck become visible. Currently a hypothesis is unattainable, for mere speculation stifles the scientific process.

            The conceived perception of global warming is widely popular among many circles of scientist prevalent throughout the civilized world, but what precisely is the perceived notion of Global Warming to these scientists? Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia describes Global Warming as, “the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).  This provides a basic understanding of what the concept is, but more information is still needed to fully comprehend the human influence upon the theme’s propagation.  To better explain the aforementioned correlation we turn once again to Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, for

which it says the following,

 

The scientific consensus is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity has caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era, and the observed warming cannot be satisfactorily explained by natural causes alone. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, which is the period when most of the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations took place and for which the most complete measurements exist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming).

 

The concept of Global Warming should now be clearer to the audience then previously so. A Basic understanding of the notion can now hopefully be conceptualized and furthermore understood from a pragmatic point of view.

            The next question at hand is what the prominent scientists have in their mind’s arsenal to prevent or solve the problem they see arising. To answer this question we go to U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. In this convention the present academics formulate the best course of action against the specter of global warming; they state their quest in saying,

 

The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent and reduce dangerous human-induced interference with the climate system. The ability of the international community to achieve this objective is dependent on an accurate knowledge of GHG emissions trends, and on our collective ability to alter these trends. (http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/items/2715.php)

 

As time goes on more and more people will begin to attribute Climate Change to Global Warming, and the U.N.’s fifty two scientists’ fear that most individuals will liken Climate Change to oil seepage in their cars. It may be always happening, but it will not necessarily be detrimental to one’s existence for many years to come.

 

IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri wondered aloud whether people had actually read last year’s IPCC report.   “Climate change is still seen as distant and undefined,” he said, adding that there was a wealth of information in that report that should spur immediate action. (http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2008/index.shtml)

 

The argument for the theory of Global Warming is now been lain bare. The definition of, the cause of and the solution to Climate Change has been empirically stated for all to ponder.

            After such a thorough account of Climate Change, one might perceive Global Warming as an irrefutable fact and not as the disputable theory that thousands of scientists throughout the world, still today, argue against. The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works released a report on December 11, 2008, which makes the bold assertion that;

 

Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report --updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” -- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)

 

Most individuals in America have received a largely one sided argument when the subject matter pertained to the theory of Global Warming. The average American does not have the luxury to research major news and media stories, but rather only interprets and accepts the plethora of information they are bombarded with at there face value. If one is to consider one an academic, it is only proper to investigate the complete scope of evidence before a uniform conclusion is reached. Upon doing so a good researcher should look for corroborating evidence that supports present evidence to or against the contrary. In keeping with the above stated, but avoiding bureaucratic jargon; the informational website Finding Dulcinea: Librarian of the Internet states the following,

 

 To gain a better understanding of the often contradictory and confusing information and opinions on climate change, look to sources such as NPR, LiveScience and the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which have published numerous interviews with scientists and experts with different viewpoints on the subject. (http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/environment/2009/jan/New-Study-Calling-Global-Warming-Irreversible-Further-Complicates-Debate.html)

 

For now the pill may appear a bit too large to swallow, but with proper interest and a balanced perspective the same pill may soon appear more palatable.

            The U.S. Senate Report tears large holes in the logic of the fifty two U.N. scientists that are largely responsible for spreading the Climate Change theory. The U.N.’s scientists have been trying to administer a solution to the perceived problem by formulating a bill that would charge individuals a carbon tax contingent upon how severe their carbon footprint is. The implications of an additional tax on carbon meaning gas, electricity etc… would otherwise seem redundant, but with the advent of Global Warming one then feels obliged to do, or more accurately pay their part. One of the U.S. Senate Reports’ most laudable scientist writes the proceeding,

 

Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC cocoordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage, was in charge of South Africa’s Chamber of Mines’ Metallurgy Laboratory and was a former professor at University of Witwatersrand where he established a course in environmental chemical engineering. Lloyd rejects man-made climate fears. “I have grave difficulties in finding any but the most circumstantial evidence for any human impact on the climate,” Lloyd wrote to EPW on January 18, 2008. “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I have tried numerous tests for radiative effects, and all have failed. I have tried to develop an isotopic method for identifying stable C12 (from fossil fuels) and merely ended up understanding the difference between the major plant chemistries and their differing ability to use the different isotopes. I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past,” Lloyd wrote. “I am particularly concerned that the rigor of science seems to have been sacrificed on an altar of fundraising. I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said,” he concluded.

(P.9)(http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9)

 

Every coin has two sides, and this obviously alludes to the two sides of the Global Warming argument. Up until very recently America has been using a trick double-sided coin hopefully more nonpartisan research can be done so as to fully acclaim the theory of Global Warming or to bury it in a shallow grave. We are amidst stormy seas and we have no time for burial rites. Either it stays or it walks the plank, you decide.  

            In today’s contemporary world the notion of Global Warming has evolved into a mainstay of American culture. Synonymous terms such as Climate Change have arisen from man’s desire to catalogue, classify and configure the aforesaid into some tangible fact in the abstract. This short essay has examined varying points of views appertaining to Global warming from which a clearer view of the relative truth has become visible. Currently a hypothesis is unattainable, for mere speculation stifles the scientific process.

Now the process has been well served, it has eaten drank and gotten up for second helpings. I liken modern day scientists to the Natural Philosophers of the past. Ptolemy was one of the most brilliant minds of his day. Ptolemy has able to able to correctly measure the relative size of the universe with just his wits and primitive hand tools. Ptolemy correctly mapped the distance from the sun and the moon, but for all of his genius he was wrong in the most fundamental of ways. In Ptolemy’s universe the earth was at the center and all else would rotate around it, even the sun. I liken scientists to natural philosophers.

 

Google Video

This video says things like "climate change is like, like cancer...if if we wait until we are sure we have it, it may be too late" Wow there Doctor! You don't sound so sure of yourself! Total pathos appeal. Give me facts do not try and appeal to my emotions!