Why Is There Still Vagueness Regarding Anthropogenic Global ✓ Solved

Why is there still vagueness regarding anthropogenic global

Why is there still vagueness regarding anthropogenic global warming? Facts vs. Opinions. View multiple videos and website sources about global warming. Select and view a video that portrays global warming as a scam or otherwise challenges the science; write a 1–1.5 page (approx. 1000 words) critique summarizing and critically evaluating the argument. Provide the link of the video you are critiquing. Background: explain how the speaker's topic fits course material and provide relevant background from lectures or text. Opinions & points of view: identify and describe at least three key points made by the speaker or in the film, state the film's primary supporting idea, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses. Answer who, what, where, when, why, how. Critique: discuss your personal opinion about the speaker or film and explain why; distinguish facts from opinions in the video. Include in-text citations and a References section.

Paper For Above Instructions

Video Critiqued

Video: "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (documentary often circulated online). Link used for critique: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J957A0pY3Y

Background and Course Context

The topic of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is central to environmental geography and physical geography modules that cover climate systems, the greenhouse effect, and human impacts on Earth systems. Core course material explains that rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations—particularly CO2 from fossil fuel combustion—increase radiative forcing and consequently surface temperatures (IPCC, 2021). Observational records from instrumental temperature series, satellite data, ocean heat content, and paleoclimate reconstructions form multiple, independent lines of evidence that the recent warming is unprecedented in rate and is largely attributable to human activities (NASA, 2020; NOAA, 2020).

Summary of the Video's Key Points

The documentary challenges mainstream climate science using several recurring claims. Three principal points it advances are:

  • Claim 1: Solar variability, not CO2, is the dominant driver of recent climate change. The film emphasizes correlations between solar activity and temperature records to suggest causation.
  • Claim 2: Climate scientists and consensus institutions are biased, with a tendency toward groupthink or political agendas—implying that AGW is a manufactured or exaggerated issue.
  • Claim 3: Climate models are unreliable and overstate warming, thus policy responses based on these models are unjustified.

Primary Supporting Idea and Evidentiary Basis

The film’s primary supporting idea is that alternative natural explanations (primarily solar forcing) better account for observed warming than anthropogenic greenhouse gases. It supports this with selective time-series plots, interviews with contrarian scientists, and rhetorical emphasis on uncertainty in model projections. However, the film relies heavily on correlation without robust causal attribution, cherry-picks data intervals, and omits the broader range of observational and mechanistic evidence that underpins mainstream attribution (Cook et al., 2013; IPCC, 2021).

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Video

Strengths: The documentary is rhetorically effective for general audiences—it uses clear narratives, strong visuals, and authoritative-sounding interviewees to create persuasive storytelling. It raises legitimate pedagogical points about scientific uncertainty and the importance of scrutinizing evidence, and it prompts viewers to ask critical questions about data and models (Allcott & Gentzkow, 2017).

Weaknesses: The documentary commits multiple methodological errors: selective use of data (cherry-picking), misleading presentation of time-series correlations as causation, omission of countervailing evidence (e.g., ocean heat uptake, tropospheric warming patterns, isotopic signatures of anthropogenic CO2), and failure to engage with the full body of peer-reviewed literature demonstrating human attribution (Oreskes, 2004; Cook et al., 2013). It also promotes false balance by implying that a small number of contrarian voices equate to a genuine scientific controversy despite strong consensus among climate scientists (Doran & Zimmerman, 2009).

Answering the "W" Questions

Who? The documentary features a mix of journalists and a small set of contrarian scientists. What? It argues that mainstream climate science is mistaken and that natural factors chiefly drive climate change. Where and When? The film examines historical and recent temperature records and situates its argument in the context of late-20th and early-21st century warming trends. Why? It frames skepticism as necessary because of perceived model uncertainty and alleged institutional bias. How? By presenting selective correlations, interviews, and alternative narratives without comprehensive, mechanistic analysis (IPCC, 2021).

Critique: Facts versus Opinions

Fact-based elements in the film include literal statements about solar cycles being correlated with temperature at certain times—but correlation alone is not proof of causation. Scientific fact, as represented in peer-reviewed studies and institutional assessments, shows that while solar variability affects climate, its contribution to the post-1950 warming is small compared to greenhouse gas forcing (IPCC, 2021; NASA, 2020). Opinions in the film often take the form of conjecture about motives (e.g., scientists are politically or financially motivated), or assertions about model unreliability without engaging with validation studies. Claims that models "overstate" warming ignore model evaluation studies that show models reliably reproduce many observed features and that uncertainties are quantified and communicated (Hausfather et al., 2019).

Personal Evaluation

My assessment is that the film is a persuasive piece of skeptical media but not a reliable scientific source. It misleads by emphasizing uncertainty as if uncertainty implies lack of evidence; in reality, uncertainty in magnitude does not negate the robust finding that human activities are the dominant cause of recent warming (IPCC, 2021). The documentary's rhetorical power should be countered with careful presentation of the convergent, multi-method evidence for AGW: instrumental trends, attribution studies, fingerprinting of anthropogenic signals, and physics-based understanding of greenhouse gas radiative forcing (Mann, 2012; Cook et al., 2013).

Conclusions and Implications for Teaching

Vagueness about AGW persists because of deliberate misinformation campaigns, media practices that create false balance, cognitive biases, political polarization, and the inherent complexity of communicating probabilistic science to the public (Lewandowsky et al., 2017; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). Educationally, critiquing films like this is valuable: students learn to distinguish rhetorical persuasion from methodological rigor, to check primary sources, and to understand how scientific consensus is established across multiple independent lines of evidence. Effective pedagogy emphasizes source evaluation, primary literature, and explanations of how attribution is determined scientifically (Doran & Zimmerman, 2009; IPCC, 2021).

References

  • Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236.
  • Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., et al. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024.
  • Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009). Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. EOS, Transactions American Geophysical Union, 90(3), 22–23.
  • IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
  • Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., & Cook, J. (2017). Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the “post-truth” era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(4), 353–369.
  • Mann, M. E. (2012). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press.
  • McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155–194.
  • NASA Global Climate Change. (2020). Evidence. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (accessed 2025-12-02).
  • Noaa National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). (2020). Climate Change: Global Temperature. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov (accessed 2025-12-02).
  • The Great Global Warming Swindle (2007) [Documentary]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J957A0pY3Y (accessed 2025-12-02).

Related Assignments