Climate Changes

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The Article “Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities” by Stephen Schneider sets out to refute the views expressed by Bjørn Lomborg in his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World”, which offers an optimistic prediction of the future of the earth’s climate conditions.

Schneider begins by establishing himself as an authority on the topic of global warming. He notes that even with his expansive expertise in the area, he is unable to comment with any certainty concerning the outcome of the climate change issue. Schneider (2002) further on observes that other credible authorities on the subject have also taken the same stance, refusing to provide conclusive predictions of the earth’s future temperatures due to its uncertainty.

Schneider (2002) derides Lomborg, who despite explicitly stating, “I am not myself an expert as regards environmental problems” proceeds to give subjective probabilistic estimate of future climatic conditions. While Lomborg makes use of numerous resources to back up his work, Schneider reveals that he cites too many secondary literature and media articles.

The bulk of the peer-reviewed articles that he makes use of are those that support his view while those disproving it are avoided. Lomborg also interprets the data from studies in a way that is favorable to his view. When reporting on projections that give ranges of outcomes, he chooses the least serious ones and this leads to misinformation.

Schneider (2002) categorically disputes the four basic arguments made by Lomborg in his climate chapter. He accuses Lomborg of making use of secondary sources in reporting and therefore failing to get some key concepts, which are contained in the original material.

Lomborg also draws conclusions on matters of global scale based on incomplete data that covers only small portions of an ocean. Such generalizations are faulty since the entire globe is very diverse. Mackenzie (2011) acknowledging this by pointing out that climatic changes vary for different regions and large number of simulations are required to make any large scale projection.

Schneider (2002) accuses Lomborg of making use of controversial hypothesis theories such as the one that “solar magnetic events modulate cosmic rays and produce a clear connection between global low level cloud cover and incoming cosmic radiation” (p.3).

Lomborg uses such speculative theories to explain the cause of climatic changes and downplay the role of carbon dioxide. Such an outlook is rejected by Mackenzie (2011) who singles out carbon dioxide as the chief culprit in the heating of the lower atmosphere which leads to global warming.

Schneider (2002) also objects to Lomborg’s proposition that economic growth and development are good for the environment since the assertion ignores the fact that carbon dioxide emissions increase with industrial activity. This view is supported by Mackenzie (2011) who observes that greenhouse gases caused by human industrial endeavors persist in the atmosphere for decades.

Therefore, the present rise in concentrations of these gases will have impacts on the climate far into the future. Accusations are also leveled against Lomborg for making predictions about the world’s future power sources based on nothing. These predictions which suggest that there will not be a major increase in carbon dioxide since renewable technologies will overtake fossil fuels as the prevalent energy source are not based on any fact.

The cost-benefit calculations done by Lomborg are also derided as being distorted and of poor analytical value. He blatantly ignores the sound practice of downgrading aggregate cost-benefit studies by government representatives who concur that such studies do not consider many categories of damages that are of importance.

By undervaluing the cost of climate damages and overvaluing the cost of actions taken to counter climate changes, Lomborg makes it appear as if inaction would be preferred to any steps taken to mitigate climate changes.

Lomborg ignores the catastrophic outcomes of the climatic changes and is therefore able to predict a future that is favorable and inflicted by minimal climate changes. Schneider (2002) also disagrees with Lomborg’s assumption that the Kyoto Protocol will be the only climate policy in existence for the next 100 years. The protocol is the first step in a series of policies that will be used to positively influence climate change over the decades.

In conclusion, the article argues that the publisher of Lomborg’s book should have made use of a wide range of reviewers considering the interdisciplinary topic that the book set out to address. Schneider signs off by lamenting the negative impact that Lomborg’s book will have on laypeople and policymakers who might believe the many wrong conclusions advanced in the book.

The researcher Bjorn Lomborg offers a defense for his work in the article titled “The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies”. He begins by questioning the neutrality of his critics who are closely identified with environmental advocacy. Lomborg (2002) then observes that the criticism offered by Stephen Schneider was a fundamental misrepresentation of his book. To begin with, this criticism ignored the fact that his book made use of the best information on the state of the world and referenced many credible sources on each topic.

While he does not consider himself an expert on the issue, Lomborg supports his presumptions with credible sources most notably of which are the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The article reacts to the accusation that Lomborg misunderstood the research he used by noting that some of the authors he referenced (for example Richard Lindzen) agree with his translation of their work.

The article observes that while the intuitive reaction would be to do something about global warming, such a response would be wrong considering the cost of action. A good alternative would be to use the resources available to handle the problems where most good can be done.

Lomborg (2002) also argues that the Kyoto Protocol will do very little good for the world and at an astronomical cost. Specifically, the protocol will cost $150 billion to $350 billion annually and all this will only postpone warming for six years in 2100. Such a cost is unjustifiable and the money could be better used solving other problems on earth.

Lomborg (2002) reveals that fears about biodiversity being affected by climate change are unfounded since less than 1% of species are going to be lost within the next 5 decades. In addition to that, more forests are projected to emerge by the end of the century. The level of air pollution is also decreasing and the world’s air is cleaner today than it was 4 centuries ago. The article reveals that as the world’s population becomes richer, they will inevitably start caring for the environment.

The priority should therefore be to develop the world economically and consequently, the environment will benefit. The article concludes by noting that the attempts at discrediting his book are a disservice to the cause of environmentalism. To make a better future, people in the present must be willing to prioritize in the areas where they can do the most good.

Personal Review

Schneider presents a strong case against Lomborg’s book and demonstrates that most of Lomborg’s arguments cannot be substantiated. While Lomborg’s use of numerous resources is commendable, his over-reliance on secondary literature and media articles reduces the credibility of the arguments he makes.

The premise advanced by Lomborg that everything will turn out all right is farfetched considering the current global impacts of climate change. The fact that so many credible scholars dispute his work also suggests that his optimistic outlook is not founded on sound scientific research.

I therefore find Schneider’s article justified in scorning the arguments presented by Lomborg concerning the world’s future climate. The claim by Lomborg that focusing on economic growth and development is good for the environment is contrary to the fact that economic growth and development has been the single biggest contributor to climate change in the world.

The responsible scientific community has to take into consideration the benign as well as the catastrophic outcomes of climate changes. The high level of confidence that everything is getting better expressed through Lomborg’s book is therefore irresponsible and misleading to the world which should remain vigilant about the negative impacts of climate changes. Misinformation will result in formulation of poor policies by government officials and this will exacerbate the problems that climate change promises to cause in future.

References

Lomborg, B. (2002). The Skeptical Environmentalist Replies. Scientific American, 287(5), 14-15

Mackenzie, F. (2011). Our changing planet: An introduction to earth system science and global environmental change (4th Edition). New York: Prentice Hall.

Schneider, S. (2002). Global warming: neglecting the complexities. Scientific American, 287(1), 2-5.

Click Here To Order Now!

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)