What Is The Proactive View About Climate Change

A Comparison Between the Sceptic View and the Proactive View about Climate Change The issue of climate change is omnipresent in our daily lives. Many have different opinions about this matter. Some think that there is nothing to worry about and no drastic change is necessary and others think that people should take action as soon as possible in order to prevent disasters in the near future. This paper will compare the different perspectives on the causes of climate change along with how necessary it is for us to make drastic changes in our lives. However, I will argue that the cause of climate change is anthropogenic and changes must be made in order to avoid chaos in the future. The proactive point of view and the sceptic point of view
will be compared in order to conclude that the proactive point of view is what everyone should adapt.
To start with, the proactive point of view consists of admitting that the cause of global warming is anthropogenic and that we should take action immediately in order to protect earth. In the article “Debunking the Myths of Climate Skepticism” by Alexander Ac, it is stated that there exists a concomitant relationship between the rise of CO2 gas and the rise of the temperature on earth (56). As we all know, humans are the major producers of carbon dioxide gas through the exaggerated use of fossil fuels in our daily life. If we continue this way, scientists predict an 80% increase in CO2 gas before 2050 (Ac 56). However, carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas that affects climate change; there are many more: methane (CH4), ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O), etc. (Tucker 831). All these gases contribute towards heating the surface of earth, causing harmful consequences to our ecosystem and our biodiversity. According to David Archer, in William C. Tucker’s “Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial a Crime?”, the effects of global warming will be very long-lasting (832). Another anthropogenic cause for global
warming is deforestation, since it depletes the carbon “sink” available to reabsorb CO2 (Tucker 837). Scientists have noticed a significant rise in the global temperature in the 1950’s and this is causing many consequences such as the rising of sea levels and the melting of glaciers around the world (Tucker 840). It is important to note that there are natural causes for climate change as well, though they are not as influential as the anthropogenic causes. In addition to this, global warming needs our attention because the process of feedback can highly increase the heating process that is beyond human intervention (Tucker 840). Finally, it is important to accept responsibility for our acts concerning global warming and try to fix our mistakes before it is too late, since the consequences of global warming can be chaotic and destructive to human kind.
In contrast, there are sceptics who do not agree with the above point of view.
Some think that climate change is due to natural causes and we should not meddle with the mechanisms of the earth (Fitzgerald 195). Others believe that we do not have enough proof to acknowledge the existence of global warming and we do not have enough knowledge about the earth to prevent these changes (Allegre et al.). Sceptics with this adapted holistic view denounce the possibility that the computer models might have exaggerated the smaller consequences of climate change (Fitzgerald 193). Also, they perceive carbon dioxide, a substance that the climate scientists believe contributes the most as a greenhouse gas, as a substance needed for survival, not as a pollutant; for instance, without carbon dioxide, the process of photosynthesis would not be possible (Allegre et al.). Furthermore, another explanation to why scientists exaggerate the consequences of global warming is because that is what the public needs, since people needs to be alarmed by a certain matter in order for them to take interest. If climate scientists go against the majority, they will suffer unwanted consequences such as losing their jobs or losing money. These assumptions were made after the incident of Dr. Chris de Freitas, a researcher, being fired from job after having published his doubts about climate change (Allegre et al.). Moreover, the fact that people believe climate change is caused by natural factors leads them
to neglect its consequences as well. They think that solar radiations, the variation of solar intensities and the solar cycles play a major role in climate change (Fitzgerald 193). Other reasons such as volcanic eruptions and reflective aerosols that reflect radiation of the sun back to space are also believed as the sole causes of climate change. Though the two parties, the climate scientists and the sceptics, believe natural causes contribute to global warming, the sceptics differ in perspective because they believe it to be the most influential cause. According to the holistic worldview of the sceptics, the earth cannot and should not be manipulated by humans; it should not be treated as a machine (Fitzgerald 196). Unlike the proactive point of view, when thinking from a sceptic perspective, people believe that it is not up to them to control the changes that occur on earth and that the earth is regulating itself on its own. In brief, sceptics do not believe that there is a need for drastic changes in order to save earth from climate change.

In my opinion, we should adapt the proactive view in order to prevent disasters in the future and to protect our home. If we wait longer hoping the earth will regulate temperature on its own, it will be too late to save mankind as the effects of climate change will be severe. Because some species will be extinct since they will not be able to adapt to new habitats and temperature changes, we might lose biodiversity (Ac 57). Losing biodiversity also has an impact on the whole ecosystem and the survival of human beings. If we consider an anthropocentric approach, it is important to consider our future generations. We must make sure that our home, the earth, is capable of supporting our next generations. I believe that climate change is anthropocentric since scientists have discovered many correlations regarding this matter as previously mentioned (Ac 56). Sceptics’ point of view is mainly based on assumptions. Also, they are worried about the expenses to make changes (Ac 57). Therefore, they are requiring 100 percent certainty for the existence of climate change. The sceptics are committing the ignorance fallacy since they refuse to believe something just because there is no concrete proof. Hence, their argument cannot be validated. The climate scientists are alarming the public, which is exactly what we need at the moment to push us towards the right path and to start making some changes. In sum, we should accept the facts and act upon them in order to prevent any harmful consequences.

In conclusion, there are two different perspectives on this subject: some have a proactive point of view; they accept the existence of climate change and they are ready to make changes, and others believe that climate change is natural, so humans are not needed to worry about this matter. However, I believe global warming is mainly due to human activities and it is necessary to adopt changes if we intend to save the earth. The next step would be to decide what kind of changes we must adopt in order to protect our home.

Works Cited
Ac, Alexander. “Debunking the Myths of Climate Skepticism.” New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs. 11.1 (2009): 56-57. Web. 13 March 2013.
Allegre, Claude, et al. “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The Wall Street Journal N.p., 27 Jan. 2013. Web. 21 Mar. 2013.
Fitzgerald, F. “Global Warming: A Cool View.” Ironmaking & Steelmaking. 31.3 (2004): 191-198. Web. 15 March 2013.
Tucker, William C. “Deceitful Tongues: Is Climate Change Denial a Crime?” Ecology Law Quarterly. 39.3 (2012): 831-894. Web. 13 March 2013.