Global warming is a political and environmental concept that is treated as a scientific fact, but on which scientists do not totally agree. Some scientists believe global warming may have devastating effects on the climate of our planet. They contend that global warming will increase temperatures from 1.5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, which would cause heat waves, melting of the polar ice caps, and the flooding of coastal areas (Borenstein NA). However, other scientists, such as Dr. Patrick Michaels, a professor of Environmental Science, consider global warming a myth. He states that "climate models have consistently overestimated climatic warming, and the new research has proved that mild warming will likely be beneficial to human beings and the planet" ("Why" NA).

Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect. Sunlight passes through the atmosphere and warms the planet’s surface. Gases in the atmosphere absorb some of the heat and reflect it to the ground; this "greenhouse effect" keeps the average temperature at 60 degrees Fahrenheit. If there were no greenhouse gases – water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide – the temperature would be 0 degrees Fahrenheit, too cold for life. Since the Industrial Revolution the gases added by man, especially carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), are believed to have trapped more heat in the atmosphere and led to warmer temperatures. Some scientists believe that carbon dioxide trapped in the atmosphere has risen 30% since 1750, while the average global temperature has risen 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880 (Global NA). It is too simplistic to focus on just greenhouse gases when analyzing climate changes. The earth’s climate also responds to shifts in orbit, variations in the sun’s energy, volcanic eruptions, and random changes in the atmosphere and oceans. George H. Taylor, president of the American Association of State Climatologists, states that "mainstream scientists say there is insufficient knowledge of the magnitude of natural climatic variations, especially solar radiation and ocean currents, to gauge how large the human impact is by comparison" (NA). In Facts, not Fear, the authors remind us that predictions by scientists are not always accurate. There was a significant decline in temperatures between 1938 and 1970 that led scientists to worry about a coming Ice Age. The authors also place the concern over the levels of carbon dioxide in perspective. Carbon dioxide "represents a very small part of the total atmosphere—about 0.035 percent or 350 parts per million. In contrast, oxygen represents about one-fifth of the atmosphere or about 200,000 parts per million" (Sanera and Shaw 154)!

Believers in the threat of global warming contend that if emissions and warming continue a number of consequences could occur. Increased heat could alter rainfall patterns leading to changes in harvests, flooding of coasts, and the redistribution and destruction of animal and marine life. The melting of the polar ice caps would raise sea levels that cause flooding and change ocean currents, while also releasing methane trapped in the ice. Heat waves and pollution from the increased emissions of methane and carbon dioxide could cause health problems (Global NA). Environmental groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, have pointed to events that they believe are direct manifestations of global warming. New York City had its warmest and driest July on record in 1999. The area in the Arctic Ocean covered by ice has declined about 6% from 1978 to 1995. In England, 31% of some bird species laid their eggs earlier in 1995 than in 1971, possibly a sign of early spring ("Greenhouse" 78).

Skeptics would point out that the earth has always experienced climate changes, many of which happened even before men began recording temperatures. Animal and plant fossils have been found in places that are now too cold to sustain life, showing a period of warmer temperatures occurred in the past. Science and history tell us that there was a Little Ice Age from 1550 to 1850, obviously a cooler period after and before warmer periods. The warmer periods in history, such as the medieval "climate optimum," play an "important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations…Colder periods have caused crop failures and led to famines, disease, and other documented human misery" ("The Leipzig" NA). Dr. Michaels points out that "neither droughts, hurricanes, nor floods have increased significantly in the last fifty years" ("Why" NA). Even if the predicted increases in temperature do occur, not all scientists believe there will be a catastrophe. One study suggest that warming would not increase sea levels, but lower them because increased snow in the Arctic would create larger ice caps (Sanera and Shaw 152). There is also evidence to suggest that more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere benefits plants and crop yield (Sanera and Shaw 157). Climate experts believe that the warming will be "concentrated in the coldest parts of the world, and mostly during the winter," and will be beneficial because "cold related deaths outnumber heat related deaths four to one" ("Why" NA).

One of the reasons that some scientists do not get on the "global warming bandwagon" is due to the questionable methods of measuring temperatures and predicting climate by using computer models. Scientists use several ways to determine temperatures of the past. One is to drill holes in glaciers and extract samples of Earth’s ancient atmosphere; another is to measure tree rings that indicate the growth of the tree each year. Scientists also analyze stalagmites in caves and sediments on the ocean floor to determine temperatures (Global NA). These are all indirect methods of "guessing" at past temperatures, and scientists have no way to assess what natural events may have contributed to the cooler or warmer climates. Even if measuring tree rings or drilling ice cores is accurate, it only shows that changes in climate happened, not what may have influenced these changes. In addition, most temperature readings are taken close to the ground and did show that several years in the 1980s were the hottest on record, which led to some of the first widespread concern about global warming. But measurements of temperature taken by satellite showed no warming between 1979 and mid-1996. In fact, there was a slight cooling trend, which can be explained by the 1991 eruption of the Mt. Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines because the volcanic dust kept out the sunlight. (Sanera and Shaw 153). Computer models and other tools used to estimate and study climate are also flawed. Climate models are simplified descriptions of the world’s climate, written in mathematical formulas on computer programs. When scientists change the formulas, such as increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, they attempt to predict the changes in the climate. These computer models are not perfect and many scientists doubt their accuracy. Robert Jastrow, founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute, "points out that the models give such a rough picture of the Earth’s climate that they miss entirely the effect of mountains such as the Sierra Nevadas and the Cascades. According to these models, the climate of heavily forested Oregon and the climate of the Nevada desert would be about the same" (Sanera and Shaw 155). There are so many factors that influence climate, it is difficult to decide which facts to put into the computer. For example, water vapor traps heat more effectively than carbon dioxide so any increases in temperature from trapped gases would need to factor in all gases in the atmosphere. Clouds may increase if carbon dioxide increases, but some clouds increase warming and others decrease it by reflecting sunlight back into space. Scientists, even with computer models, cannot anticipate when and how all of these aspects of climate will work together. One prominent scientist, Richard Lindzen, believes that "computer models cannot even successfully calculate the present average temperature—let alone predict the temperature of the atmosphere ten or twenty years from now" (Sanera and Shaw 43). The National Research Council released a report last year that questioned the "accuracy of data supporting global warming claims" when they noted that the government had not made progress "toward developing and maintaining a credible integrated climate observing system, consequently limiting the ability to document adequately climate change" ("Global Warming’s" NA). The reports states that scientists have relied on "low-tech, human-intensive observing methods" and the "application of nine of out ten principles of climate monitoring needs improvement" ("Global Warming’s" NA).

Global warming seems to be accepted by the general public and the government so steps have been taken to reduce the level of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. The United States is a member of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has sponsored meetings between countries to decide policy on environmental issues. The Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon in 1997, requires most industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 6-8% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Some developing countries are allowed to increase emissions ("Terms" NA). Many independent scientists believe that the goals set at the conference are unrealistic and "based solely on unproven scientific theories and imperfect computer models—and the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from an increase in greenhouse gases." ("The Leipzig" NA) Their Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change states that "there does not exist today a general scientific consensus" about the relationship of greenhouse gases and global warming. "In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever" ("The Leipzig" NA). Warwick McKibben and Peter Wilcoxen of the Brookings Institution state that the Protocol is "a policy that is very strict in principle but completely ineffective in practice and is neither prudent or realistic" ("A Flexible" NA). Analysts report that if it is implemented the economic impact could be severe for businesses and farmers while having an effect on the climate that will be "too small to detect" ("A Flexible" NA).

The most disturbing part about the issue of global warming is that it has become a political topic instead of a scientific one. It seems that once the popular notion was accepted and government became involved, the science was accepted instead of questioned. In 1992, Vice President Al Gore wrote in his book Earth in the Balance that "paying too much attention to doubters ‘undermines the effort to build a solid base of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.’ The message: Agree with him or be quiet" (Sanera and Shaw 44). Robert Balling of Arizona State University points out that knowledge about global warming has increased rapidly so scientists need a chance to study the data and that even a delay of ten years in reducing greenhouse gases would have a "minuscule effect on future temperature" (Sanera and Shaw 45). The impact on the economy of both developing countries, who are trying to industrialize and are hampered by regulations, and industrialized nations, who are required to make drastic changes, should be considered before extreme measures are made into law. The American Farm Bureau Federation projected that the income of farmers and ranchers would be cut by as much as 50% if all of the regulations proposed to comply with the Kyoto Protocol were implemented ("Global Warming’s" NA). The National Center for Policy Analysis projects that if the Rio and Kyoto reductions do occur, it would reduce the United States gross domestic product by $200 billion annually, 500,000 Americans could lose their jobs annually, and the government would be forced to raise the price of gas by sixty cents a gallon and double the cost of heating oil (National NA). These factors should be considered in making policy, especially when there is not a consensus that the increased greenhouse gases are creating a problem.

Overall, the scientific community has not proved the existence of global warming and its devastating effects. The best approach would be to remove the fight over global warming from the political arena and return it to the scientific one. There should be funding to help improve the analysis of climate, computer models, and the way humans adapt to climate and use land and resources. It is sad that most "businessmen have now given up debating whether global warming is a real phenomenon, retreating to the position of meeting the political demands engineered by Kyoto last year as cheaply as possible" (Foster NA). Since the study of climate involves so many variables, our leaders should not jump to conclusions or impose laws that could impede economic growth. The Leipzig scientists rightly point out that "energy is essential for economic growth" and that "poverty is the greatest social pollutant" so any restriction on energy use that "inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution" ("The Leipzig" NA). With so many people in poverty around the world, can be afford to focus so much energy and so many resources into a problem that may not exist? Consider that Peter Huber, writing in Forbes magazine, compares the carbon dioxide usage of a pioneer family a century ago to a family today and discovers, surprisingly, that technology and progress have turned "dustbowl to grassland, pasture to forest, and carbon to earth" (112). Our planet and our environment are important and we should do our best to protect them, but it should be based on well-established scientific facts rather than theory and speculation.