Essays on global warming(Sept 24& 26)

Another Disillution?

It has been a time since the topic “global warming” begins to play an important role in the international concern. As the phenomenon begin to act more and more vividly, it’s not hard to image what the world would be if no further action is taken. However, even in such a common recognizing, we can see limited improvement. When world-wide meeting and other environmental movements are in increasing frequency, no real effective action is taken. More sarcastically, the actions are controversial, often considered to be economically or politically beneficial. What is worse is that some extreme situations emerge. Anti-environmentalists appear, and they announce that the global warming disaster is a great lie.
All above is the very concise realistic condition and it obviously and accurately reflects the instinct of human. Why so ridiculous? Because we are too human. We are selfish; we are used to stability; we don’t want to change; we intend to make more money; we desire to live longer. Thus, while we accept the evidence for climate change intellectually, we reject it emotionally. One’s greatest rival is himself, is he able to beat him? Or does he want to beat him? That’s really a tough question.
Although all the things seem to be a foreboding, it is not the first time we are facing similar condition. Disasters are always a catalyst of inspiration. At the time of wars, we could see abundant unique qualities of human—selflessness and bravery. It is how we overcome the difficulties. However, differences are more than similarities. If we are to be eliminated, we would lose eventually. No definite point of view is anyone on the earth able to draw now.
The day is approaching, and we are looking for another disillusion.


Challenging the Global Warming

Although the majority of people believe the theory of global warming, there are some eloquent challengers.
In the interview of Fred Singer, he objects the theory of global warming. First, he analyzes how it comes, and indicates some unreasonable points in it. To demonstrate his idea, he moves the focus of arguing to the evidences. Some ignored evidence in contravention with the theory is ignored, he says. We all know that science is based on facts, so the argument is strong and convincing. Then he talks about the policies in relation to the theory. He says that the policies are way too costly and unrealistic. And he is holding the idea of “Look before you leap!” instead of the precaution principle.
Let’s stop here and see. It seems that Singer’s claim is somewhat believing, because the attitude is more realistic. However, when you are discussing something realistically, it is easy to fall into the over-consideration of money. Throughout his argument, the focusing on money is self-evident. He talks about the pay of the polities and the return. In his opinion, the pay is large and eager when the return is not clear. It is not morally praised, whereas it is relatively closer to our life. Scientific debating should be realistic and objective, yet how can we make sure that his words are not subjective? Always care about the personal interest is one of the qualities of men. So it is possible that he is making the claim to maintain his advantage. No one is tired of getting more money. One more thing, even though he emphasize the importance of reality, to such a topic, creation is essential. If you are over-relied on the evidence, it is harder to find what is implying, and it is impossible to always depend on the nowadays world in discussing a future problem.