Persuasive Speech

Is the debate over global warming a scientific debate over a controversial theory, or is this controversy fueled by political interests? Often, no matter what point of view they take, or with which political group they align themselves, politicians drag the argument over global warming to extremes. Many neglect to evaluate the exact nature of the problem, or to work towards the goal that is in the best interest of the region or country in question. I believe that scientific evidence clearly shows the reality of the global warming phenomenon, and that any doubts about the issue are generated by political interests wanting to obscure theses issues in order to delay action on them.

The scientific evidence supporting the existence of global warming is compelling. According to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, average global temperatures have risen 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, and the temperatures in the Arctic region have climbed at twice that global average. As well, the 1980’s and 1990’s were recorded as the hottest decades in 400 years, and possibly the warmest for several millennia. Granted, all of this information may just seem like another list of random statistics, but it shows a clear change in the global environment. In addition, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that human made greenhouse gases like carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide have contributed to the vast majority of the temperature increases. 56.6 % of our carbon dioxide emissions come from our extensive use of fossil fuels, and 17.3% comes from deforestation and decay. Many of these statistics predicted global warming to increase in the coming years, progressing past the year 2100 because of the long lifetime carbon dioxide possesses in our atmosphere, and the large heat capacity of the oceans. Not only has global warming affected global temperatures, but it has resulted in the Montana Glacier National Park’s loss of 123 of its 150 glaciers in the last century. Furthermore, global warming is expected to increase the number and scope of extreme weather events and patterns. While a scientific debate over the parameters of global warming may exist, there is a clear consensus in the scientific community about the reality of global warming, and the fact that our use of fossil fuels is one of its primary causes.

It is therefore evident that the crux of the global warming debate can be found at the feet of prominent political groups, rather than among major scientists. As recently as the past week, politically-motivated reporting aimed at disqualifying the evidence of global warming has occurred. After emails were stolen from climate scientists in East Anglia, claims were made that these scientists discussed hiding data from skeptics and critics of global warming. The motivation behind publicizing these claims was found to be that of suggesting that the science behind global warming was fabricated. After an extensive review of all the emails in question, the Associated Press found that even though the said scientists held their own doubts about facets of global warming while asserting to the world that there was no doubt about the existence of global warming, the scientists did nothing more than shape their message as politicians often do. The Associated Press also explained that the messages in the email did not undermine the evidence collected by the scientists which showed that global warming is due to man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The politically motivated reporting of the East Anglia emails is the kind of political claim that obscures issues and delays action on those issues.

Such evidence that political interests are behind much of the controversy leads to the question of why. What do scientists have to gain from supporting the theory of global warming? It is hard to imagine that scientists could gain anything. They aren’t going to make more money or gain a better reputation by causing such controversy. Then, what do industries have to gain from disputing the evidence for global warming? Who gains if action on global warming is prevented? Industrial businesses account for a great amount of the greenhouse gas emissions that we create. If actions to reduce fossil fuel emissions were taken, and industries were required to cut their emissions, these businesses would be those facing a great loss in profits and ability to prosper.

Now, you may wonder where all this information and evidence leaves us. I must acknowledge that the unanswered questions about the rate at which global warming causes major changes, and the implications of those effects are absolutely critical. If our action is not sufficient, global warming becomes a serious problem with negative implications for the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. On the other hand, if we overcompensate for the effects of global warming, it will lead to unnecessary damage to the world’s economies and our lifestyles. We can’t allow the politically-based controversy over global warming to control our action. We therefore must acknowledge that global warming is a very real phenomenon on which we must focus our resources, and work to gain a better understanding of it that will allow us to develop effective, rational responses to it.