In this blog post, we explore various perspectives on whether global warming is a crisis caused by human activity or simply part of natural climate change.
According to the dictionary definition, global warming refers to the phenomenon of rising average temperatures on the Earth’s surface. Although warming phenomena have been observed several times since the Earth’s formation, the global warming that currently captures the world’s attention refers to the rapid rise in average temperatures that began in the late 19th century. Many people point to the use of fossil fuels as the primary cause of this rapid temperature rise, citing as evidence that the use of fossil fuels such as oil and coal since the Industrial Revolution has increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. According to a study by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), when comparing the global average temperature in the late 19th century with that of today, temperatures have risen by approximately 0.6°C. This temperature rise is causing drastic changes in natural ecosystems, including both land and ocean, altering the habitats of various plants and animals and leading to environmental problems such as numerous species facing extinction. Furthermore, melting glaciers and rising sea levels are altering coastlines, and islands such as the Maldives are at risk of submersion, prompting calls for heightened awareness. Various organizations and experts assert that while warming trends up until the early 19th century were merely natural cyclical phenomena, human activities have been the primary cause of warming since the late 19th century, and they advocate for the development of countermeasures.
However, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, authors of ‘Unstoppable Global Warming’, directly refute these claims. The authors point out that the negative effects attributed to global warming are actually exaggerated and are phenomena that could have been observed in the past as well. They argue that the global warming the world currently faces is a cyclical phenomenon, just like those of the past, and is entirely natural.
The basis for their argument is as follows. First, the authors claim that sea level rise is not actually occurring. While many experts assert that global warming will cause sea levels to rise, submerging islands and leading to numerous disasters, the authors explain that when actual satellite observation data is examined, the rise in sea level due to global warming is far more negligible than the figures reported by environmental organizations such as the IPCC and the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). While the IPCC and EPA’s data can be derived by considering only the amount of glacial melt when the Earth’s average temperature rises, the melting of glaciers increases atmospheric water vapor, leading to more clouds, which in turn generates new glaciers and permanent snow. Ultimately, by scientifically proving that the volume of glaciers is maintained to some extent by ocean circulation, the authors emphasize that they have not selectively chosen data that supports a specific trend. Furthermore, the authors refute experts’ claims by citing the example of the sinking Tuvalu region. Experts argue that Tuvalu is sinking due to rising sea levels, but satellite observations have confirmed that this is actually the result of land subsidence, not rising sea levels.
Furthermore, the authors refute the possibility of a sudden global cooling. While many people believe that global warming leads to an increase in the Earth’s average temperature, the authors argue that this is incorrect. Instead, they explain that as global warming accelerates, heat transfer via ocean currents becomes more difficult, causing temperatures in tropical regions to continue rising while temperatures in the polar regions drop. Experts predict that these changes will eventually return most of the world to an Ice Age-like climate, leading to difficulties in agriculture and disasters such as massive population decline.
They argue that this process will proceed rapidly, considering that historical records show a drop of about 27 degrees Fahrenheit over just a few years. However, according to the authors, ocean currents have actually increased steadily during the recent warming period. This indicates that there is no problem with the heat circulation of ocean currents, and when simulations based on these facts were run to predict future outcomes, the likelihood of such events occurring was found to be nonexistent. According to simulation results from the Hadley Centre, future ocean heat circulation showed a trend of increase rather than decrease. Therefore, there will be no abrupt climate fluctuations caused by global warming, nor will there be dramatic changes such as an average temperature rise of 10 degrees within the next decade. The authors point out that experts’ claims are merely a means to secure research funding.
Finally, the authors also addressed the extreme weather phenomena we are currently experiencing. Every summer, we experience squalls and frequent showers—phenomena typically associated with tropical climates. Extreme weather events, including squalls and hurricanes, are occurring all over the world. While experts claim these phenomena are the result of global warming, the authors argue the opposite: that what we call “extreme weather” is actually nothing more than a repetition of events that have always occurred throughout history. In other words, the cycles of extreme weather phenomena are intertwined with the cycles of warming, and since climate phenomena are caused by regional differences in solar radiation depending on time and season, they are inevitably linked to warming. Since there are historical records of these phenomena occurring in the past, they argue that the claim by experts that these so-called “extreme weather events” are caused by global warming is not valid.
The authors argue that the phenomena currently believed to be caused by global warming—as well as those that may occur in the future—are either not caused by global warming or do not actually occur. The authors’ argument does not deny global warming itself, but rather the serious consequences attributed to it. They refute the claim that some of these consequences are linked to global warming and assert that they have presented sufficient evidence to support their position. However, the book does not explicitly state that global warming itself is not occurring, and the statistical data is insufficient, suggesting that further supplementation is needed. Therefore, as someone who agrees with the authors’ position, I aim to supplement the book’s shortcomings and further strengthen their argument.
I have learned that there are many experts who share the authors’ views, and they, too, have long argued that global warming is a hoax. They contend that experts’ calls for alternatives to global warming are ultimately political tactics designed to curb the use of carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. There are counterexamples to the data presented by institutions and experts who emphasize the severity of global warming. These institutions and experts claim that the Earth’s annual average temperature is rising, causing winters to become shorter, with ice forming 5.8 days later and melting 6.5 days earlier. Accordingly, they point out that snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased by 5% annually since 1966, summer Arctic ice has decreased by 7.4% compared to a decade ago, and Arctic sea ice coverage has decreased by 2.7%, emphasizing that glaciers are continuing to melt. However, this data is merely biased toward a specific argument. According to other data, the average temperature in Greenland has actually declined since 1937, and the ice sheets surrounding Antarctica are spreading cooling. Furthermore, between 1987 and 1998, the global average temperature actually dropped by 0.008°C. Contrary to the claim that species in the polar regions are facing extinction due to melting glaciers and the loss of habitats, there is data showing that the polar bear population has increased fivefold compared to 1975. According to a Fox News article supporting this, Arctic sea ice increased by 60% in 2013 compared to the previous year. Furthermore, Fyfe et al. (2013) point out that the warming trend has slowed to the point where it can be considered a cyclical phenomenon.
Considering these facts, it is clear that the evidence supporting current claims of global warming is biased. A comprehensive analysis of the data reveals no clear evidence that global warming is actually occurring. The column even argues that the claim regarding increased greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide resulting from fossil fuel use is incorrect. It states that carbon dioxide accounts for only 0.00127% of the Earth’s atmosphere and therefore has no impact on the greenhouse effect. A study by Craig D. Idso et al. (2013) also supports this claim by revealing that there is no correlation between temperature changes over the past 150 years and carbon dioxide emissions caused by human activity. The author of the column interprets the reason why global warming is being claimed even though it is not actually occurring as being driven by political motives. The author also states, much like the authors of the book, that scholars who claim global warming is occurring are merely acting to secure research funding.
As mentioned earlier, the evidence that global warming is actually occurring is unclear. All climate data can be interpreted either in a way that supports global warming or in a way that does not. In this regard, there are also those who view the global warming debate from a neutral perspective. Those holding a neutral stance argue that the global warming debate is fundamentally tied to scientific uncertainty. In 2004, climatologist Oreskes published a paper in *Science* to prove that global warming is a clearly existing phenomenon, which led to a consensus among many climatologists. This sparked public interest in the issue of global warming, and the debate intensified. However, as mentioned earlier, some data does not support global warming, and it has been revealed that certain experts used biased data. In 2009, the global warming debate resurfaced after emails were leaked revealing that IPCC climate scientists had interpreted and manipulated data with unclear trends in an extreme manner. Ultimately, the global warming debate arose from collusion among certain experts who disregarded scientific uncertainty. In reality, claims and judgments regarding global warming can only be made through global statistics and scientific analysis. From this perspective, the argument that global warming is not occurring can be based on the lack of validity in the data claiming that it is happening.
In conclusion, the global warming described by experts is not as severe as we perceive it to be. The data experts use to claim that global warming is occurring is biased, and the phenomena allegedly caused by global warming are either entirely natural occurrences or simply do not exist. We are currently in the midst of the Earth’s cyclical climate fluctuations and are merely living through a period that corresponds to a warming phase.
