The11th Hour Analysis

Most of this are not new to me, which frustrates me even more. Climate change is apparent, yet those who are at the positions to make an impact are seemingly oblivious or even in denial. I just can’t understand which financial or political gain

If we don’t act now, all of humanity will suffer the consequences. Plants, weather patterns, humans, animals, the oceans, we all have everything to lose. Why not act now? Bernie Sanders doesn't listen to the fossil fuel lobby and neither should anyone else. Large energy companies have billions of dollars to advertise “Clean Coal” and lobby to imbecilic congressmen who were elected through gerrymandering and would rather eat a hundred dollar steak, or keep their seat in the House or Senate than do what their constituents sent them there to do. The evidence for climate change is riveting: sea level rise, temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover. Today the level of carbon dioxide in the air is 400 parts per million meaning every million parts of the atmosphere we breath in is .04% carbon dioxide. Although four hundredths percent may not seem like very much, but carbon dioxide is a Green House Gas which means it can store and emit radiation. Green House Gases are also the reason for the Green House Effect which causes the Earth to heat up by the storing of radiation from the Sun’s rays in Green House Gases. Common green house gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Since 1880 Earth’s temperature has raised 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (“Climate Change: How do we know?”). In order for the Earth to not completely ruin our climate, we will all need to emit less than one trillion metric tons of carbon between now and 2050. Basically there is only enough space in our atmosphere to burn or vent less than a quarter of all known oil, natural gas and coal reserves

This paper will address the institutionalized road blocks in the United States that have prevented successful climate change action for the last twenty-five years. First, the United States government has become increasingly influenced by and connected to private industries. The private industries and the government work together as partners. While this likely has been beneficial in some ways it has kept out innovation, competition and prevented the implementation of successful health and public welfare regulations. Second, the Banking, Energy and Media Industry are linked together to promote consensually agreed to messages. These industries work together to keep fossil fuels as our major energy source. Third, each industry works together in non-profit

Climate change has been a subject of discussion in the media for many years, supported with the use of arguments against oil polluting the environment and extreme scare tactics of Polar ice caps flooding civilians backyards. The issue has been ignored by the majority of lay people as seeming too complicated, and with all the conflicting information in the media in the past, who can blame them? However, scientifically, climate change and what perpetrates it is fairly simple to understand and society as a whole is beginning to come to a clear consensus on climate change. Thanks in part to more readily available forms of media and information, people have become cognizant of the fact that climate change is a legitimate problem which requires immediate amelioration. While this may seem melodramatic, society is realizing that climate change is an issue which can no longer be denied if the human race wishes to continue.

Today, we live in a dog-eat-dog, who’s better than who world. We live in a world where one person’s opinion on something is more important than another’s because they simply are more qualified. With all of the news sources and media outlets, we are left to figure out which source of information is more correct than another based on the credibility and qualifications of its author. This same problem occurs in the topic of climate change. When we look up information about climate change we must evaluate the credibility of the authors who are writing the articles we are reading. Once you are able to figure out which author is more credible the next step is to determine which author is more persuasive and able to convince the reader that their

Matt Patterson argues in “Global Warming – The Great Delusion” that the alleged scientific consensus surrounding the theory of global warming is based not on fact, but rather on a web of mass hysteria and deceit. Patterson contends that “In fact, global warming is the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history”, and that the beliefs of global warming proponents are the result of their own delusional imaginations and a subconscious apocalyptic yearning toward which masses of people tend to subject themselves. While Patterson worries that what he perceives to be the

These last two election cycles have demonstrated the importance of climate change in relation to politics and the american people. What is unfortunate is that what seems to be a very crucial and real problem in our human survival, according to scientists, is being debated by people who do not have the scientific credentials to even discuss the science behind the reality of climate change. Those behind the skeptics, have funded a successful campaign against the reality of the facts and have introduce doubt into the sciences.

Global climate change has been an unresolved issue since the 1970’s. Despite the facts presented by scientists, the governments refuses to take action. It has been estimated that the global mean temperatures have already risen by 0.8°C and the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise by another 0.8°C, whereas 2°C is considered the maximum rise which the earth will be able cope without any major catastrophes (Mckibben, 2012). At the present rate of climate change we are already experiencing a shift in seasonal patterns. The governments’ inability to make strict laws regarding reduction in emission, therefore, stirs the controversy that what is stopping them and why do they refuse to do anything about it.

On one side of the argument we have we have scientists, who recognise that climate change is present in our society today and realise the importance of direct action. They provide us with important and relevant data and statistics that are evidence that climate change is real.

We have all heard statistics over how unmitigated global warming can lead to rising sea levels, increased temperatures, lower rates of precipitation. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that climate change, if unmitigated, would create costly damage not only to the United States’s economy, but also to the world as a whole (source). Despite a scientific and general consensus that climate change is real and a problem, actual committed action against climate change has been disappointingly slow, until recently. We also know the cause of climate change. The United States EPA finds that “Carbon dioxide accounts for most of the nation’s emissions and most of the increase since 1990” (EPA). What we don’t know is a solution.

Global warming is hot topic nowadays. Alarmists and scientists fight to make their statements known, but while the alarmists avoid the scientist, non-governmental organizations pass themselves as scientist. They not only give out exaggerated data, they also have the nerve to accuse humans of being the cause of global warming. Also, we cannot be certain that we are being told the truth without knowing exactly what is really going on behind the scenes. We blindly trust those in authority because we think that they have our greater good in mind and that whatever they say must be the truth.

There have been plenty of disputes regarding the infamous topic global warming, despite the fact that there is a unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. A history professor at UCSD, Naomi Oreskes, discusses this in her article, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change”. She begins her investigation by researching credible experts and environmental organizations, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences, and several others. By utilizing these various sources as evidence it strengthens her argument about the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. In this case, Oreskes audience consists of

Did you know that the United States is the second largest contributor of CO2, and the less concerned about it? Climate change has been a problem for decades, but just recently we start to see how big of a problem climate change is, and can be. Climate change is one of the biggest problems that we are facing right now, even if keep trying to act like is nothing. Everybody, the people, the government, and big companies are a big contributor of this phenomenon. The more we keep denying its effects, the more we are going to regret it later, and going to wish that we could go back and try to fix the issue. You going to know one day, and its going to be late. Climate change should be the U.S government main focus this decade and the ones to come. Climate change can affect a country in every way economically, destroyed …., cause a lot of deaths.

As a kid who has cared about nature his entire life, and an avid modern environmentalist for four years and counting, this issue has been at the center of my psyche for quite some time. I have seen public perspective on this issue change before my eyes. From the original rejection of Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie on “global warming” to personally marching alongside 300,000 people in our nation's capital to raise awareness on climate change. However, despite all of these avenues the issue is still spoken about as this distant idea that eventually will be a disaster. Many politicians and news networks speak of the need for slow implementation of policies and programs to right our environmental wrongs. The best way to paraphrase the common narrative of this issue would be to say, climate change is going to happen down the road, it will probably be bad and trying to fix it in the near future would be a good idea. That weak call to action shoves climate change onto the long to-do list of the leaders of our world. Not only does it not create the urgency needed to actually curb the effects of our environmental ignorance, but it does not accurately describe the threat of a changing climate. Treating this like a political issue will not allow for the rigorous changes needed to address such a problem in the timely manner that is required.

The problem that the pro- global warming theorists have created is that of social standing and little else. While there may be scientific backing to support some of the theory, the media presents the problem with great sensationalism. Global warming and energy conservation has thus become a trend and losses some of its validity through this. The scare tactics used by the media to “promote awareness” are just that, a linguistic ploy to gain favor. “Awareness of this global threat reinforced public concern and environmental problems and thereby provided environmental activists, scientists, and policy makers with new momentum in their efforts to promote environmental protection.” (McCright, 2000) This statement draws line to the potential benefits that would be received if the pro-global warming theorists were to draw enough attention to the issue. Driven by social empowerment and conviction to environmental protection, these activists misrepresent the actual threat and paint it as being much more