Fortunately, for the most part, on important safety issues, people generally listen to what is considered by mainstream scientific institutions to be fact.  For example, we readily acknowledge that effort should be made to do what we can to protect ourselves from the possibility of bird flu (even though it is not a certainty).  We accept that lead, both from paint and leaded gasoline, is dangerous to children. We did not see ongoing efforts on the part of the media to show “both sides” of bird flu concerns or the lead “issue”.
    

   I propose that the reason that the global warming has come to be thought of as an issue with “two sides” is because of the powerful economic interests involved. (The same pattern occurred for years with tobacco.) The activities of the biggest corporations lie at the center of this issue, and it affects each of us in our daily lives. (Also, perhaps, because of Al Gore’s campaign against global warming, some have thought that this is a partisan issue.)
    

   In 1989  fifty oil, gas, coal, auto, and chemical corporations founded an industry lobby group, the Global Climate Coalition.  The stated purpose  was to ”cast doubt on the theory of global warming.”  Its greatest success was the role it played in the 1992 Rio Earth Summit’s failure to adopt measures to protect humans from the danger of climate change.
    

   As the scientific evidence for climate change began to firm up, the agenda of the Global Climate Coalition was reevaluated by its members, who gradually left. In 2000 the Coalition collapsed, leaving the group with so few members it was no longer effective.
    

   More and more major corporations are urging reduction of carbon emissions and taking actions themselves, including BP, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Dupont, IBM, etc.
    

   Global warming is not a partisan issue. Arnold Schwarzenegger has probably accomplishing more to curb carbon emissions than any other leader in the US.  Newt Gingrich advocates that we take action to cut back our carbon emissions and just came out with the book Contract with the Earth.  (Arguably, our most important environmental laws have been legislated under Republican presidents, including the Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act.)
    

   I can only suggest that persons carefully investigate the source of information on global warming.
    

   For example, the Advocate ran two very lengthy editorials calling global warming a “swindle.” Information from the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle was used to discount concerns about global warming. When I researched (and viewed) this film, I found that one of the main scientists featured in the film (Dr. Wunsch of MIT) was considering legal action against the film makers for totally misrepresenting him. “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community.” I found multiple other problems with the film, including that the film maker had been sanctioned in Britain for misrepresentation in a previous film of his.  I only mention this to suggest that the editorial columnists in the Advocate have a poor history as far as their sources of information and their knowledge base on global warming.
    

   The latest Advocate Messenger editorial refers to the “scientist”, Bjorn Lomborg, who actually does not claim to be a trained scientist. His training is in political science, and he is a professor at the Copenhagen Business School. When the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty was asked to investigate Lomborg, they ruled that his publication “is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty” and is “deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.” However, they noted that he did not meet criteria in terms of intent or gross negligence because of lack of expertise in the fields in question.
    

   Imprimis Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural? raises similar arguments as Global Warming Swindle. A little research on the author of S. Fred Singer revealed the following:
    

   Dr. Singer retired from the University of Virginia in 1994 and is 83 years old. He testified and wrote in support of the tobacco industry, arguing that second hand smoke is not a health risk.  Dr. Singer also argued against the banning of chlorofluorocarbons. He wrote that CFC’s were not causing depletion of ozone layer, that the health and environmental consequences of ozone depletion was still unproven, and that the American public would balk at the “$1300 burden on the average household” that he claimed regulation of the implicated chemicals would cause.  He objected to what he called a “skin cancer scare.” Fortunately, the world did not agree with him.

    I would like to suggest a couple of reliable sources of mainstream scientific opinion which are readily obtainable: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Royal Society (U.K.’s national academy of science).  I have enclosed some information from each source on global warming.
    
    The consequences of continued global warming are so catastrophic that we must, if anything, err on the side of caution.  Unfortunately, recent information suggests that the warming trend is accelerating at a faster rate than previously predicted.  
    

   The nature of warming from green house gases is not linear - there are dangerous feedback loops. The emissions of the offending gases cause a cycle of increased emissions. For example, carbon dioxide emissions from human activity causes a slight increase in atmospheric temperature. Warmer air holds more water. Water vapor is a powerful green house gas itself, so additional warming occurs. This in turn causes more water vapor, and so on.  Likewise, warm water does not hold as much carbon dioxide as cool water. So a little bit of warming causes the release of carbon dioxide from the oceans which causes further warming, more release of carbon dioxide, and so on.  The thawing of the permafrost is causing release of methane which is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.  The melting of the polar caps results in the Albedo effect -- white ice reflects the sun’s energy back out to space, while the darker waters tend to absorb the heat, causing further melting of ice, further heating, and so on. Scientists agree that we have a very limited amount of time to get our carbon emissions under control before these cycles will spiral out of human control.  
    

   Our generation must take responsibility to reduce our carbon emissions to a level that can be absorbed - this can not wait for the next generation. It is morally imperative that we not rob our children and grandchildren of this wonderful creation and leave them a situation of incredible hardship.

Christine Missik
Copyright 2007