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
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
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