Is the Threat of Global Warming Real or Imaginary?

Global warming is, like bacon or bluebirds, not something one can believe in. Like bacon and bluebirds, global warming actually exists. It can't be sliced or tasted like bacon, and it's not going to sing like a bird, but global warming is measurable, tangible, and immediately apparent. There is a near-total (97%) consensus among scientists that climate changes are occurring (Meyer, 2012). Ambient and ocean temperatures have risen on aggregate over the past century, and most, if not all, of the climate changes can be attributed to human industry. Arguments "against" global warming come across like arguments "against" women joining the workforce, or "against" the fact that cigarettes cause cancer, or "against" the ill effects of fast food. The arguments against global warming are not coming from scientists -- people who are actually in the business of facts -- but from a litany of loudmouth opposes whose motives are no less sinister than those of Holocaust deniers (Meyer, 2012). The real issue is not whether global warming exists (because it does) but over issues like its severity, timing, and perhaps most importantly, what to do about it.

Perhaps the term "global warming" should be replaced with "climate change," in order to erase any lingering arguments showing that a warming trend is not necessarily uniform or universal. "Climate change" is in fact a far more useful moniker than global warming because it reveals the diverse ways multiple related phenomena can impact the planet and its inhabitants. Warming might be an aggregate pattern, but some regions will experience more severe and colder winters; while others will experience issues more related to storm damage and land erosion than to actual warming. Generally, climate change entails a series of feedback loops that, once in motion, are difficult to reverse. These feedback loops do tend to entail overall warming trends: such as the melting of polar ice caps, which then allow for an increase in absorbed rates of solar radiation, which in turn raises temperatures and reduces snow and ice pack ("The Global Warming Debate," n.d.). Still, it helps to rebrand global warming as "climate change" in order to help those who are too ignorant or greedy to aver the existence of the problem. With the term "climate change," disbelief based on ignorance over what "global warming" signifies can be replaced with intelligent discussions over how to best develop new technologies that do not emit greenhouse gases, or new technologies that combat the problems that already exist.

Because temperatures, climactic conditions, and geological conditions have fluctuated since the Earth's birth, some detractors of climate change concede that the phenomenon might exist but that it would have happened with or without people; or that there is not much people can do about it anyway. Indeed, there have been massive and catastrophic climate changes not caused by human beings, such as the Ice Age. Automobiles and factories did not cause the Ice Age; so automobiles and factories might not be responsible for the current climate change indicators either. This argument is untenable given clear information revealing the direct, immediate, and rather drastic impact of human industry including the prevalence of automobiles. There are clear causes of climate change that are directly attributable to human industry, which means that humans are contributing to climate change or at the very least could be exacerbating a natural warming cycle. Even if climate change were to happen independently from human industry, would it not be in the best interest of human survival and quality of life to do something about it?