For many people, it may be difficult to understand the perspective of a climate change skeptic or denier, however it must also be recognised that they may face a similar struggle in comprehending your own view. This article is not being written to condone a certain opinion, but rather to simple explore other beliefs through understanding and explanation. I cannot attempt to perfectly depict a skeptical viewpoint, as I do not share that same viewpoint so I am not speaking personally, but I intend to capture and encompass the opinion without passing too much judgement. Aside from that, this will certainly be an fascinating topic to uncover, as there are several vague types of climate change skeptics.
One argument is not actually the denial of the existence of climate change, but rather the skepticism of its origins. For many, it is a widely recognised scientific fact that climate change is a natural process that has been severely sped up by human intervention, however for some skeptics, it is the belief that climate change was always going to occur at this rate. It is interesting to note that many who hold this view have an ulterior motive for doing so. For example a large oil conglomerate is going to be put out of business if it is said that they are a huge contributing factor to global warming, therefore they will encourage people to believe that this was an inevitable process to continue to make some form of profit. This can be dangerous though, as companies with a great amount of influence can spread falsehoods and detract from the climate change awareness efforts.
On the other hand, there is also a group who just completely deny the existence of global warming as a concept. Deniers say that the placement of weather measurers close to urban settlements is producing inaccurate results due to an effect called the ‘urban heat island’. This is supposedly caused by the abundance of carbon dioxide concentration and heat absorbing asphalt. They also strongly disagree with the future forecasts about how climate change will worsen and affect our planet. This is because deniers think that the models used for these calculations are not reliable as they are climatologists’ “poor guesses”. The line of argument is that if we cannot correctly predict the weather a week in advance, how is it possible that we can do this for over fifty years into the future.
Whilst many of us are firm in our opinions on this matter, we would do well to remember that for every argument we produce, the opposition can come up with a counter argument. Skeptics may be seen as tainting public perception purely for money, but activists can be seen as overly cautious, whilst putting our present at risk for the sake of our future. It is, of course, entirely your own decision as to how you would like to see this, although we must always take into account the other side.
Who’s Future? Our Future.
Comments