Global warming and climate change is a topic of discussion that is often distorted by the

media and criticized. Nowadays, there is so much media distortion that one doesnt know how
to differentiate a factually source from an article spewed out by a conservative think tank.
Among such articles are 3 that I will be analyzing. The first is Why the World Is Getting
Warmer, Even Though It Is Getting Colder and was featured on the American spectator. This
article in particular takes on the stance that scientific evidence today does not support global
warming, the rise in sea levels, and that global warming is a man-made hoax that was created
to give the government increasing powers to regulate human activity. The second article is
called Is Global Warning a Sin? and it follows a similar path. Alexander Cockburn, the author,
believes that global warming is not a result of greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, he believes
that the increase in temperature is caused by natural processes that occur after the end of
Earths last ice age. Lastly, I analyze John Tierney and Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the
Planet, which says that the richer countries get, the cleaner their sources of energy become
and the less they emit.
Peter Ferrara, the author of Why the World is Getting Warmer, Even Though it is
Getting Colder believes that current scientific data points away from global warming. Ferrara
makes several claims against global warming including:
Global temperatures were much warmer relative to today thousands of years ago
without the burning of fossil fuels
C02 is Not pollution
We are in a period of reduced sunspot activity, the cause of global cooling
Global warming was created for massive government expansion
Ferraras first claim is that global temperatures were much warmer through certain
periods of history than they are today. He states Global temperatures were also warmer than
today during the Medieval Warm Period of several hundred years around 1000 AD. Yet there
was no significant human burning of fossil fuels during these periods (Ferrara 2). Ferraras
tone in this statement infers that since there was no significant burning of fossil fuels during the
medieval era, then the burning of fossil fuels in the present couldnt possibly be the reason for
the increasing temperatures. Aside from this, there is no way to confirm Ferraras statements
of global temperature considering the scarcity of data prior to the 1600s. Despite the
substantial of uncertainties, data from ice cores, tree rings, and other sources shows that the
Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in
some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally (Science Mann).
Ferraras second claim is that C02, being a natural occurring substance in plants, is not
pollution. As defined by various dictionary sources, a pollutant is any substance or waste
product that renders air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a
specific purpose. The fact that C02 is a main component of photosynthesis doesnt change the
fact that C02 is a waste product of the burning of fossil fuels.
Ferrara follows this claim by also saying that the C02 concentrations were up to 30 times
greater than today 50 -150 million years ago without catastrophic effects and that it had the
beneficial effect of accelerating plant growth. His manner of stating this almost implies that
those carbon levels are acceptable. In fact, he says that it be beneficial. He fails to
acknowledge the fact that included with those carbon levels, was a sea level 75 100 feet
higher than today, no arctic ice caps, and stronger monsoon winds, etc. The Earth was a vastly
different environment when those levels of C02 existed in the atmosphere. So while it may not
have been catastrophic to the life in that period, the changes that would result with the
increase in C02 would most certainly be catastrophic to millions of populations.
Ferrara also makes the claim that reduced sunspot activity actually puts Earth in a
global cooling as opposed to global warming.
Lastly, Ferrara claims that global warming was never about the graphs or the data. He
believes it is about the massive expansion of government controls over human activities
(Ferrara 1). While this statement cannot be readily proven, there is in fact notable presence of
conservative think tanks that promote certain public policies. It was decided that this
conservative movement was started in 1990 since it marked the emergence of a concerted
backlash against global warming within the Bush administration (Policy Lecture 1 Slide 17).


Ferrara criticizes the evidentiary basis of global warming. This correlates with claim 1 on slide
19 of Policy Lecture 1, from which we can infer Ferraras political bias (sentence should be
placed at the end of my analysis in further paragraphs)















http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256.full global signatures
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5644/404 medival climate

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php c02
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm (2nd claim)