Simeon 1

Global Warming and Climate Change: Problems with Communication and

Explaining the Issue to the General Public
By
Andrin Simeon

Our planet is doomed to self-destruction if we don't deal with climate change.
The topic of global warming and climate change is a well known issue that constantly
concerns most of us. I have been especially interested in this issue for many years
because I have spent much time in nature. The impact of global warming will have
devastating effects on our lives. In the future these effects will become more serious
and more apparent. Global warming and climate change will bring changes in many
areas; for example, it will have effects on sea level rising, changes or disruption of
weather patterns and destruction of habitats for all life on this planet. The issue is
very complex because it requires extensive scientific investigation using computer
simulations and long term weather models which are very complicated to interpret.
The issue is also complex because it is difficult to communicate this complicated
knowledge to the public, in a way that can be easily understood with regard to the
causes and effects of climate change. Climate change is so important because it
threatens our existence and every country in the world will have to deal with the
effects of climate change, whether it is eventually proven to be manmade or a natural
occurrence. Since I wanted to find out why people in the US are so polarized on the
issue of global warming compared to Europeans, my research question is, Why are
people in the US so polarized on the issue of global warming? It seems to me
Simeon 2

people here just choose one side and especially the opponents refuse to discuss the
issue.

(Figure 1)
The topic of my research paper is the emotional debate in the United States
surrounding the issue of global warming and the problems communicating and
explaining the issue to the public. I chose the article Global Warming before
Smokestacks as my first source, since I wanted to inform myself on the main
arguments used by global warming opponents. I am very familiar with the arguments
of supporters of human caused global warming, but I wasnt familiar with alternative
views. I had a difficult time finding articles by opponents based on facts and scientific
evidence, and this article is very important because it mentioned many scientists who
are skeptics. I want to include both pro and con positions on manmade global
warming in my research paper, and this article provides sources from both sides.
I located this article in the Chronical of Higher Education through the Ebsco
Academic Search Premier. The author is Josh Fischman, a senior editor of this
journal which is a forum for many different topics in education and current events.
Fischman succeeds in informing the readers about new theories on the cause of
Simeon 3

global warming and discussing the theories effects on the current controversy
regarding this topic. The author wants to motivate the readers to inform themselves
of the views of both proponents and opponents of the issue. The audience consists
of readers interested in the issue of global warming and in the causes of the
emotional debate about the topic.
The author discusses a hypothesis that is different from most other
hypotheses on global warming. According to this hypothesis, humans started
changing the climate 10000 to 9000 years ago and not just as recently as the
industrial age. As with all hypotheses, there is much pressure from other scientists to
disprove this new theory. Interestingly, the thesis gets support from global warming
opponents, although Fischman claims that the scientist who proposed this new cause
of global warming actually wanted to prove that mankind has been responsible for
climate change for thousands of years. However, the opponents use the theory to
prove their claim that even if humans have been influencing the climate for thousands
of years, todays CO
2
output is not any worse than 10000 years ago. According to
the author of the new theory, the effect of earths larger population today is much
more severe than the effects of a few thousand people many years ago. Fischman
concludes the article by claiming that the scientific debate itself is more important
than determining the cause of global warming.
The author was successful in presenting views of both opponents and
proponents of manmade global warming. I agree with Fischmans claim that there is
scientific evidence to support opponents arguments. However, I disagree with
Fishmans conclusion that the discussion is more important than the results. This is a
serious issue and action needs to be taken to control the effects of global warming,
without placing too much importance on just discussion and comparison of research
Simeon 4

results. This article provides a good base for research on alternative causes on
global warming other than present day manmade causes. It provides names of
scientific authorities and research institutions such as universities that are skeptical
that global warming is caused only by man. The author establishes credibility by
basing the article on scientific facts and quotes from authorities, such as quotes from
Dr. Rudimann (proponent) and Dr. Bruecker (skeptic), to document both sides of the
issue. The article is very relevant and useful as a basis for my further research on the
theories and scientific authorities that are skeptical of global warming. However, the
article did not mention any political or private organizations in the US or
internationally that are skeptical of the current theory of global warming. Ill need to
research more in this area.
I located the second article Outsiders inside the Climate Debate through the
Academic Search Premier also. I was searching for an article on the reason a large
percent of the public in the US is skeptical of the existence of human caused global
warming. This article was published in the National Journal, which includes a variety
of topics and is read by academics and the general public. The author Neil Munro
sets the scene by describing the current discussion in the U.S. Senate regarding new
laws on the topic of global warming and energy production/use. He describes how
the debate is influenced by the complicated scientific evidence, often based on
climate models and weather simulations and including data on subjects such as the
effect of clouds on transferring heat from the atmosphere to space, that are not well
researched. Munro discusses the tactics skeptics use to try to prove to the public that
much of the scientific research supporting global warming is not well-founded, but he
also believes skeptics criticism might result in better scientific research. He claims
that the scientific community needs to make a better effort to discuss the issue with
Simeon 5

the public, since many people dont understand the scientific studies and evidence
and are skeptical because the issue is so complex.
Munro also believes the issue is so complicated that both sides need to listen
better to the arguments of the other side. He claims that skeptics often use an
internet-based network to immediately question new scientific studies and to force
scientists to re-evaluate their research. On the other hand, he provides several
examples to show skeptics have forced scientific studies to be revised, when the
scientists have made errors interpreting data. Munro discusses how the global
warming skeptics are attempting to decrease support for stricter laws to limit
manmade CO
2
pollution by raising questions about the quality of climate research
worldwide. Monroe believes the main errors in recent scientific evidence were caused
by either missing raw temperature data, which is used to document past temperature
patterns and predict future warming, or by studies based on analysis of ancient tree
ring samples. The data was compiled by the University of the East Anglias School of
Environmental Sciences. The author explains that the data errors and the results of
the non-representative tree-ring analysis together with a ten-year plateau in global
temperature rise allows skeptics to increase their influence and persuade a large
portion of U.S. citizens that man-made global warming based on a rise in CO
2
levels
doesnt exist. The skeptics include conservative politicians, a small number of
credible scientists and a large number of internet-based activists, some representing
organizations funded by energy companies and manufacturing organizations.
Monroe emphasizes that neither global warming skeptics nor supporters are united.
Many skeptics completely deny global warming, but a fairly large minority claim that
man-made causes exist. On the other side of the debate, supporters can be divided
into groups that either believe all global warming is man-made, that it may be partly
due to cyclic earth warming, or both. The author concludes the article by claiming that
Simeon 6

supporters of global warming are frustrated by skeptics tactics, but skeptics believe
that they are forcing scientists to conduct serious research and inform the public
correctly. I agree with Munro that there is a problem with explaining the process of
global warming and that an effort needs to be made to inform the public better. The
author is very credible because he relies on studies and polls conducted by
professional organizations; he also bases his information on statements and quotes
made by scientific authorities. The article is very useful as a source on both global
warming supporters and skeptics standpoints on the issue. Munro provides several
examples that explain why the global warming debate is so polarized. He includes
information on non-traditional causes of global warming, for example warming
caused by natural causes like warming cycles or animal-caused global warming. Id
like more information on the topic of animal caused global warming, since I dont
know very much about this subject, so this will be the topic of my next source.
The article Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting
and Mitigating Climate Change was published in the journal Environmental Health
Perspectives. I located the article through the Academic Search Premier. This article
was written for professionals in the area of environmental health and readers who
want to inform themselves on the effect of animal production on global warming. The
authors G. Koneswaran and D. Nierenberg wanted to combine scientific information
from studies on the impact of farm animal production on global warming and offer
additional data and evidence on this issue. They claim serious changes need to be
made in the industrial production of farm animals and animal products in order to
lessen the effect on global warming from this area. The effect is far more serious than
expected. According to a study they site, the impact of this agricultural sector on the
environment is, next to the use of fossil fuels, the most serious contributor to
greenhouse gases. The impact is even higher than that of the transportation sector.
Simeon 7


(Figure 2) (Figure 3)
The authors discuss the three main greenhouse gases: CO
2
, methane and
nitrous oxide and prove that the last two have a more serious effect on global
warming than CO
2
, although this is not well known. They also show that farm animal
production causes 18% of man-made greenhouse gases. According to studies
quoted by the authors, approximately 56 billion farm animals are raised and
slaughtered per year, and this number should double by 2050. This includes animals
raised for meat, milk and egg production. The authors describe the modern intensive
production systems with landless facilities as a major contributor to climate change
and stress that extensive farming methods in Africa, Asia and Latin America are
quickly being replaced by intensive production. They claim that CO
2
emissions from
animal agriculture are responsible for about 9% of the total emissions. This includes
the use of fossil fuels for fertilizer production, transportation of animal products and
animal feed and emissions produced by changes in land use, for example de-
forestation, desertification, and land damage. Another problem are the millions of
tons of nitrogen that accumulate in animal manure, as a result of the nitrogen based
artificial fertilizers used to produce corn and soybean based farm animal feed. The
Simeon 8

authors claim that the impact on the earths nitrogen cycle is still not adequately
researched. Methane and nitrous oxide are two other main pollutants that contribute
to global warming. The effect of methane is 23 times stronger than CO
2
, and nitrous
oxide is 296 times more damaging. 65 % of worldwide nitrous oxide is produced by
farm animal productions, and up to 40% of annual methane emissions. The authors
claim that the effects of global warming and climate change, such as desertification
and droughts, will cause an increase in conflict, especially in Africa, as people fight
for remaining water and farmable land. Also, many highly infectious diseases are
beginning to appear in forested areas cleared for farming, such as tropical
rainforests. These authors are credible because they are scientists and base their
information on many scientific studies, which are cited. Both authors have been
researchers for many years and the article was published in an academic journal and
was reviewed by their peers before publication. The article provided me with a lot of
very useful information, for example, that CO
2
is not the only serious harmful gas to
the environment, but that methane and nitrous oxide are actually much more
damaging. I also learned that the effect of industrial animal production is more
harmful than the pollution effects of the transportation sector, a fact that I think most
people are not aware of. I agree with the authors claim that a change in attitude
regarding mankinds consumption of animal protein and products is necessary, in
order to limit the negative effects of industrial animal production on the environment. I
also agree that it is very important that we begin to consume more non-animal
sources of protein. This article contains very useful information on animal caused
global warming. However, since much of this information is not well known, I think the
authors could have emphasized the importance of educating the public in a
widespread campaign about the damaging effects of this industry and the necessity
of changing our attitudes to animal protein consumption, as well as to developing
Simeon 9

alternate means of meeting mankinds consumption of protein. The topic of peoples
attitudes and specifically, why many opponents of the theory of global warming have
such a strong negative attitude toward supporters interests me, so I will look for an
article on this topic as my next source.

(Figure 4)
This article "My Worries Are Rational, Climate Change Is Not: Habitual
Ecological Worrying Is an Adaptive Response." was published on the online open
access academic journal Plos One. In this article, the authors examine the very
emotional debate on climate change. Opponents of the theory of manmade climate
change often criticize supporters and refer to them as suffering from a mass
neurosis or of creating a global warming hysteria. In this study, Verplanken and
Roy, members of the Department of Psychology at Bath University in the United
Kingdom, want to disprove this thesis by showing that although supporters of the
theory of manmade climate change might habitually worry about the environment,
they arent suffering from psychological imbalance. The authors conduct a study of
people who are convinced that mankind contributes to climate change. They claim
that the average supporter is concerned about a serious environmental issue and
Simeon 10

shows an adaptive response, which means that the person changes his/her
behavior in response to a problem or threat. The authors discuss the fact that in
some cases, worrying can lead to psychological problems, for example, neurosis, but
it can also be constructive, by motivating a person to look for solutions and engage in
problem solving. The authors then show that the participants worrying results in a
constructive response and is based on true concern for the environment; examples
are provided to demonstrate constructive responses. The participants were also
evaluated in five areas: the actual amount of time spent worrying about the
environment, environmental attitudes, pro-environmental behavior, pathological
worrying and personality traits. The authors claim that people who often worried
about the condition of the environment had a protective attitude toward nature and
took steps to reduce their carbon footprint. Also, there were no signs of pathological
worrying like obsessing about the environment, and participants had personality traits
like openness and emotional stability. This article is credible, since it is based on a
study conducted by scientists and published in a peer reviewed journal. The results
are based on scientific data, including two tables showing results from this study and
the authors also cite 20 other academic studies and books, both in support of and
denying the theory of manmade climate change. The article is relevant to my
research, because it supplies evidence to support my claim that people who believe
in manmade climate change are not neurotic people, but average citizens who show
more concern for the environment than many skeptics. The study includes a good
description of the characteristics of supporters of the manmade global warming and
climate change theories and results are explained in a way that readers can easily
understand. This study was concerned with the characteristics of supporters of the
global warming theory, but I still need information on the opponents and the reasons
they reject this theory. My next source will be an article on this topic.
Simeon 11

I was searching for an article through the Ebsco Academic Search Premier
that discussed the characteristics of opponents of global warming and found this
summary of articles from a symposium at Oklahoma State University. The author,
Riley E. Dunlap is a professor of sociology there and was president of the
International Sociological Associations Research Committee on Environment and
Society. The article Climate Change Skepticism and Denial was published in the
academic journal American Behavioral Scientist and the author introduces and
summarizes six articles written by social scientists that were discussed at the
meeting. The topic was skepticism toward or even denial of the occurrence of global
warming and climate change by a large percentage of the public in the United States.
The articles were all based on studies or research by social scientists. Dunlap
presents an overview of the current research on the topic in order to motivate readers
to inform themselves. He claims global warming is a social problem which was
recognized in 1990 and emphasizes that since then, there has been very little
success in reducing effects on the environment and society and that the negative
effects are constantly increasing. He emphasizes that manmade oranthropogenic
global warming (AGW) is a very complex occurrence and as a result, the effects
cannot be precisely predicted. These factors make it difficult for the public to
understand causes and effects, and to feel responsible for contributing to a solution.
Dunlap stresses that uncertainty and skepticism are two of the main characteristics
of science, and while scientists are aware of this, the public often misunderstands the
terms. The lack of public support for the scientific community leads to the publics
lack of demand for action by policy makers and politicians. Dunlop refers to one of
the papers presented at the symposium that documents the development of a denial
machine based on false information. This is spread by conservative politicians and
think tanks, industrial sponsors such as the fossil fuel and manufacturing industries,
Simeon 12

or conservative media including newspapers, television and radio talk programs and
more recently, internet denial blogs. There is shared constant criticism of studies
issued by scientists convinced of global warming. Dunlop explains the skepticism-
denial continuum and shows how the public often lets itself be influenced by a small
minority ofalarmist environmentalists, to the extent that they often refuse to even
discuss the topic. Also, the Climategate controversy, based on leaked researchers
emails and data contributed to a large drop in the publics support of manmade global
warming, beginning in 2009.
I agree with Dunlap that there is an organized effort to convince the public that global
warming either isnt occurring, or if it is, that its not human-caused. I think that
conservative political groups in the United States have discovered that this issue can
be used to unite voters and influence them to support conservative candidates.
However, I dont completely agree with Dunlap that the causes of manmade global
warming and climate change are so complicated that the public cant understand
them. Many processes and effects are commonly explained through diagrams and
charts and can be understood by the reader.
This article contributed to my understanding of the reasons why manmade
global warming and climate change are often disputed or denied, due to difficulties in
communicating the scientific evidence to the public. This creates the impression that
the theory doesnt seem to be well-founded. The article was very useful to my
research, because it provided data and links to several academic studies. Im
convinced now that better communication between the scientific community and
public would assist us in adopting measures to deal with the negative impacts of
global warming.
Simeon 13

My understanding of the issue of global warming and climate change has
changed very much since I began my research. I am very familiar with the arguments
of supporters of human caused global warming, but I wasnt familiar with alternative
views. I began research by looking for an article that discussed the argument
between supporters and opponents of global warming, since I wanted to inform
myself on the main arguments used by skeptics. The information contained in the
articles I chose show that global warming and climate change issues are very
complex and not easily understood by the general public. I am now convinced that
the politicians and the scientific community need to launch a large scale campaign to
better inform the public. This could help make the public debate less emotional and
lead to real communication between supporters and skeptics of global warming. This
will help us find solutions to the environmental effects of global warming, whether
manmade or caused by external factors, such as natural cycles of climate warming
and cooling. I hope that mankind becomes aware of the seriousness of the problem
and that each of us can realize that we need to contribute to a solution. I would like to
do further research on the topic and compare and contrast the different views of
countries or continents on the issue of global warming and climate change.






Simeon 14

Works Cited
"Can Oregano Save the Planet? Culinary Herb Reduces Greenhouse Gas

Emissions." NW Farms Food RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2014. (Figures 2

and 3)

Carrington, Damian. "2013 Climate Year in Review: 'the Heat Is On. Now We Must

Act'" Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 19 Dec. 2013. Web. 30

Apr. 2014. (Figure 1)

Dunlap Riley E. Climate Change Skepticism and Denial: An Introduction. American

Behavioral Scientist 57 (6) (2013): 691-698. Academic Search Premier. Web.

17 Apr. 2014.

Fischman, Josh. "Global Warming Before Smokestacks." Chronicle Of Higher

Education 56.11 (2009): B11-B12.Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Mar.

2014.

Klare, Michael T. "Surviving Climate Change." The Huffington Post.

TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Nov. 2013. Web. 29 Apr. 2014. (Figure 4)

Koneswaran, Gowri, and Danielle Nierenberg. "Global Farm Animal Production And

Global Warming: Impacting And Mitigating Climate Change."Environmental

Health Perspectives 116.5 (2008): 578-582. Academic Search Premier. Web.

5 Apr. 2014.

Munro, Neil. "Outsiders Inside The Climate Debate." National Journal (2009):

9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Apr. 2014.

Verplanken, Bas, and Deborah Roy. "My Worries Are Rational, Climate Change Is

Not: Habitual Ecological Worrying Is An Adaptive Response."Plos ONE 8.9

(2013): 1-6. Academic Search Premier. Web. 10 Apr. 2014.