Skeptics and Deniers: The Conclusion (Part II)

Part of the previous blog post: 

This post is Part I of the conclusion to Skeptics and Deniers, a series of analyses on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I'm sorry about the delay in publishing this post :( I really wanted to give a more in-depth review of the book, and the writing became too long to be a single post. That's why I divided it into two parts! Please understand that it took longer to explain my judgments, inferences and opinions in greater detail for a comprehensive review. 

* For those of you who haven't been following these posts, here is a little background information:  the book's  authors assert that Global Warming is simply part of a succession of changes in the Earth's system; there is only weak evidence that Global Warming is anthropogenic; Global Warming might actually be beneficial; we do not have to make an effort to curb CO2 levels, because they aren't responsible for Global Warming.  If you wish to see my analyses posted over the past several months, please check out the previous blog posts: on the Earth and the Sun; the weaknesses of the Greenhouse Theory; Rising Sea Levels; Mass Extinction Part I, and Mass Extinction Part II. 

We've finally reached the end of the book. Looking back at the previous posts of this series, I see so many topics and sub-topics that the authors explored to explain their views. Methods of scientific research, inferences made from statistics, connections between health and climate change, possible misconceptions of the public, the role of politics in influencing mass media, the evolution of foreign policies and protocols, etc. Along with this, the authors present a rather detailed overview of the history of climate change that took place on our Earth. I deeply appreciated this part of the book, in that it gave me a chance to truly reflect on my own views, knowledge and ways of accepting new findings and research.

I also became aware of the limited scope of my understanding of our world. Frequently, when the authors stated the flaws and inaccuracy in research that presented ideas I saw as "facts" e.g., 'Global Warming causes extinction of many species', I couldn't decide which side to lean towards. Should I stick with what I've internalized throughout my entire education so far? Or would it be ignorant to dismiss these new ideas as absurd? The main reason for my indecisiveness was my lack of knowledge of the scientific, social, and political spheres of our world. 

This leads me to another question: how confident are the authors in their own beliefs and ideas? While I was thankful for the aforementioned experience I received from this book, I was puzzled, bewildered, astonished, even incredulous at the way they laid out their information. I cannot possibly list all, but there were so many generalizations, exaggerations, manipulations of words that were used to support their views. A seemingly innocuous sentence such as 'People choose land with higher productivity for agriculture, which inhabits less species, leaving our the rest of the world's land to nature.' At first glance, this single sentence doesn't seem out of the ordinary. However, when looked at just a little more carefully, it is outright wrong. It almost makes it seem as though we only use land for agriculture. We use land left over from agriculture for so many other purposes, such as shelter, transportation, goods production, etc. When sentences like this are scattered around the book, a quick reader would gain the misleading impression that we humans aren't powerful enough to impose great changes in our environment.Why would the authors write such sentences? It certainly helps their opinion that humans aren't really causing so much change on our planet (ex. not causing Global Warming, not driving wild species to extinction). With this realization that I began to see the book as somewhat manipulative. Along with this lingering idea, it was when I noticed other aspects of the book that I began to doubt the credibility of the authors.

I hope I have given you at least a glance at climate skepticism. I realize that I may have been partial to my own beliefs at certain points; I know, however, that I put a lot of effort into presenting an objective view and leaving some points to be interpreted by the readers of my blog. Whatever view an individual has, it is always helpful to be aware of the entire spectrum of viewpoints, as well as the logic and evidence behind them. This may be the only way we can become more certain that decisions we make in our endeavors are not illogical or unfounded but reasonable and substantiated. I hope you have enjoyed this series of blog posts and will begin to explore more on how our planet really works. I will do the same when I go to college and explore to address the questions that I have.

Thank you for supporting me, and I will see you in March!