Anda di halaman 1dari 7

Ryan Clark

Shersta Chabot
Eng 105
14 October 2016
Project Two Annotated Bibliography
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. "Carbon Emissions Have No

Significant Impact on Climate Change." The Environment. Ed. Lynn M. Zott. Farmington

Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Climate Change

Reconsidered II: Physical Science 2013 Report of the Nongovernmental International

Panel." 2 (2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

This sources main argument is that climate change is not primarily caused by carbon

emissions. The article focuses on the findings of the Nongovernmental International Panel on

Climate Change, and contrasts them with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. The article negates the viewpoint that carbon emissions causes global warming by

saying that IPCC climate models are merely speculative at best, and that they are easily formed

to fit and reflect the bias of the researcher. Another main argument is that evidence found in polar

ice cap sample show that atmospheric temperature increases precede increases in atmospheric

carbon dioxide. The article concludes that global temperature change is within its normal

fluctuations, and that environmental protection policies should not be formed with the

assumption that human activity is the main problem to be addressed.

The point of view of this source is unique because it denies that human activity

contributes to climate change. This stands in contrast to other points of view that claim that

human activity dramatically affects the climate because of the production of greenhouse gasses

such as carbon dioxide. It is interesting that this article ends with a recommendation on how

environmental policies should be formed, because it identifies industrial companies and

manufacturers as stakeholders. These stakeholders would support this point of view because

environmental policies that this article argues against can place restriction on such manufacturers
to reduce emissions which can be inconvenient and costly to them. This point of view shifts the

blame away from these stakeholders.

Sacks, Adam D. "Cattle Can Be Used to Reverse Global Warming." Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy

Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from

"The Fight Against Global Warming: A Failure and A Fix." 2012.

Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

This source argues for a more ecologically oriented solution for global warming. This

article claims that the ultimate goal to counteract climate change should be to return the carbon

content of the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. This article claims that simply reducing

emissions is not a sustainable strategy to achieve this. The article claims that natural grazing is a

viable solution to achieve desirable atmospheric carbon levels. By focusing on and promoting the

natural relationships between grazing animals and grasslands, massive amounts of carbon can be

pulled out of the atmosphere and returned to the ground to in turn create healthy soil. The article

claims that this is the most sustainable and environmentally responsible approach to reversing

climate change, and claims that this goal could be accomplished on a reasonable timeline, even

within 30 years of its implementation.

This article clearly takes on an ecological point of view. This is inferred from the articles

extensive focus on symbiotic relationships, land preservation, and the natural carbon cycle. This

point of view is held by such stakeholders as environmental activists concerned with habitat

preservation. This is an attractive viewpoint for them because it promotes the preservation of lots

of land, many species of grazing animals, species of plants, and it supports the growth of large

amounts of extremely healthy soil. Anyone concerned not only with stopping global warming,

but with actually healing environment would likely support this highly sustainable point of view

the humans cause global warming, and have the ability to reverse it.
"Driving an Electric Car Reduces Carbon Emissions and Fuel Costs." What Is the Impact of

Green Practices? Ed. Tamara Thompson. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2016.

At Issue. Rpt. from "State of Charge: Electric Vehicles Global Warming Emissions and

Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States." 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in

Context. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

This article discusses the environmental and economic benefits of the operation of

electric vehicles. One of this main arguments in this article is that electric vehicles emit less

pollutants than other vehicles, and therefore contribute less to global warming and climate

change. The article also argues that the production of the electricity to power these vehicles is

also green because renewable production of electricity is becoming more common in many

regions. Regions are categorized into the categories of good, better, and best to denote the

amount of clean (renewable) electricity is produced in that region; in each of these regions an

electric vehicle ultimately has a smaller carbon footprint than most hybrids and high MPG gas

powered cars. Another argument that this article presents is that consumers can benefit directly

by driving electric vehicles because they will save on average $750-$1200 annually simply

because they are buying electricity instead of gas, furthermore this number can increase even

when utility rates are high by switching to a time of use rate plan with utility providers.
This article presents somewhat of a business point of view in the sense that it highlights

how marketable electric vehicles are. Producers and sellers of electric vehicles would certainly

be the stakeholders of this viewpoint. While they may be genuinely concerned for the state of the

environment, these stakeholders benefit the most from this viewpoint because of the potential

profits derived from creating a market for electric vehicles. These stakeholders are primarily

concerned with presenting potential benefits to environmentally minded consumers in order to

convince them to buy a product.

Monckton, Christopher. "Claims About Ocean Acidification Are Overblown and Scientifically

Baseless." Endangered Oceans. Ed. Helga Schier and Lynn M. Zott. Farmington Hills,

MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Answers to a Fisherman's

Testimony About Ocean Acidification." 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14

Oct. 2016.
This essay argues that the increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide have a negligible

effect on the worlds oceans. According to this argument, there is a large amount of carbon

dioxide already in the oceans. Monckton argues that even if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

were to double, according to solubility and gas laws, the total amount of carbon dioxide added to

the oceans would be equivalent to less than half of a percent of what is already there. According

to Monckton, this or any actual increase in carbon dioxide levels in oceans does not qualify as

acidification and does not have an impact on marine ecosystems. The essay further argues that

global warming would in fact reverse acidification, because warm water absorbs less carbon

dioxide than warm water. Another argument presented is that changes to ocean water are

completely natural, alkaline and carbon dioxide changes are negligible and can be attributed to

many factors.
The main claim of this argument is that global warming (if it is even real) does not

considerably affect ocean environments. Stakeholders in this argument include companies with

coastal production sites, and companies with such business as offshore oil drilling and shipping.

These businesses produce carbon emissions with the potential to alter ocean environments in

particular. The viewpoint described in this argument would benefit these companies by taking

them off the hook for any environmental consequences, and also by giving them grounds to

argue against any proposed policies that may affect their production or spending due to concerns

about ocean environments.

Williams, Arthur R. "Nuclear Power Is the Best Way to Address Climate Change." The

Environment. Ed. Lynn M. Zott. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014.

Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Nuclear Power: The Only Available Solution to Global

Warming." Physics Today (Apr. 2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Oct.

This sources argues that nuclear energy is a viable, green solution to replace traditional

carbon emitting power plants in order to lower carbon emissions into the atmosphere and

therefore significantly counteract the effects of climate change. Williams primarily makes

arguments which contradict common predispositions against the implementation of nuclear

power. One of the more significant arguments made is that nuclear energy is safe and has many

large scale and commercial applications. Williams describes such technology as molten-salt

reactors that have been extensively developed and proved reliable. The article also argues that

nuclear energy is a better option than such renewable energy options as wind and solar, because

these forms of energy production are in their beginning stages of development still, and would

require massive amounts of infrastructure to be practically implemented.

This article presents a point of view that nuclear power offers the best potential to provide

clean energy. One stakeholder that shares this point of view would clearly be nuclear power

companies, who could benefit greatly from the large scale implementation of nuclear power.

Another identifiable stakeholder would be the many citizens who are concerned that nuclear

power plants might endanger the safety of their communities. Power companies can also be

affected by the implementation of nuclear power, as it could be initially very expensive to

implement new power sources, but ultimately result in long term savings and sustainability.

Those who agree with the point of view in this argument would generally agree that global

warming is a relevant issue that humans must take action to resolve.

Romm, Joe. "Scientists Who Deny Global Warming Rely on Falsehoods and Out-of-Date

Research." Global Warming. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013.

Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Panic Attack: Murdoch's Wall Street Journal Finds 16

Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda with Long-Debunked Climate Lies." 29 Jan. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Oct. 2016.

This essay essentially argues that the large majority of arguments against the reality of

climate change are invalid. The essay presents several arguments to prove this, one in particular

that the authors of such arguments have no scientific background, and in some cases are

associated with such biased supporters as the ExxonMobil corporation. Another argument

presented is that arguers against climate change are often not up to date with scientific literature,

and often use sources so old that they no longer hold valid arguments. Another argument

presented is that arguments against climate change also quote sources out of context and

blatantly disregard any opposing viewpoints.

This essay focuses on the very interesting argument of whether global warming is real or

not. While it does support the point of view that climate change actually exists because of human

actions, the purpose of the essay is to discredit many prominent arguments against it. This is

important because stakeholders in this argument include the scientific community, or anyone

who may want to construct an argument regarding the reality of climate change. This argument

assesses what kinds of evidence are valid, which biases are present, and common fallacies that

are committed while constructing arguments against the existence of climate change. This is

important to the identified stakeholders because it determines how they may develop valid and

effective arguments themselves to argue their own points of view on this topic.