Environmental Protection

My argument begins with a call to reason. We can all agree that, in many ways, the planet we call home faces problems. Whether it is animal species becoming instinct, ground water being polluted, or the earth being warmed to dangerously high temperatures, scientists everywhere have found environmental problems that need to be addressed. Or have they? Are environmental problems that we hear about so much in the news as bad as they sound? Or is this simply a much distorted version of what is really going on? Allow me to supply my take on the matter, and may you all draw your own conclusions. 1. Concessions While I am against the majority of environmental "problems", arguing that they are virtually non-existent at best, I will concede on one point: that of water pollution. I agree with several environmentalists who say that water pollution is the cause of several problems to life all over the Earth (1). Water, being vital for all life on earth, is one of the most unique and amazing substances in all of creation. While there are many natural processes at work to help purify water, there is still many problems caused by things like ground water pollution, which cannot realistically be resolved by natural process. I support, to a limited degree, increased regulation over such a proportion of the environment. That being said, I will now move onto the greater portion of my argument: that of somewhat mythical "scientific" theories that need debunking. Overpopulation Overpopulation is often touted as the #1 cause of environmental doomsday. People are overcrowding the Earth, and pretty soon, we will not have enough farmland to grow food. Food costs will rise, no one will get enough to eat, chaos will break out. Now hold on a minute. There is plenty of room for all of us. First of all, we currently produce enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet there are only 7 billion of us. (2) And what about the fact that half the world's population lives on 1% of it's land? (3) The thing is, we have all through out our history on this planet had plenty to go around. True, there are areas of the world that are much poorer and in want compared to the USA. But it can hardly be argued that it is because of want of land. So, that very well refutes the idea that we are somehow short on land and that an increase in global population will put over the top. Climate Change I could do an entire debate on this subject alone (and many have), but I will try and keep my argument brief. First of all, most climate change enthusiasts appear to argue for man-made, wide swings of temperature, either as a result of increased carbon dioxide emissions, toxic chemicals released into the air depleting the ozone (think DDT) or some combination of such causes. The main leg that such an argument leans on is the idea that there is significant temperature change in the first place. If that theory is undermined, the entire argument collapses. Well, data has shown that the Earth appears to be variable. (4) In other words, temperatures might be rising in one area, yet falling in another. Most people probably don't have a problem with that idea at least on a limited scale. In fact, it cannot often be observed first hand. One year, the weather in their own personal area of the world might be warmer than usual, then next, slightly cooler, or perhaps rainier. But the more disputed idea is whether or not this is true consistently . Yet studies have shown that this tends to be true even with things like glaciers and ice shelves. According to Friends of Science: "Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It"s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. " (4) And what about the fact that "Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern. " (5) As if that weren't enough evidence, wouldn't it be a crushing blow indeed if it was discovered that the excessive carbon dioxide release we were so worried about actually were beneficial? That's right, you guessed it, it is beneficial. Listen to this quote from plantsneedco2. org: "Far from being a pollutant, rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will never directly harm human health, but will indirectly benefit humans in a number of ways. Chief among these benefits is global food security. People must have sufficient food, simply to sustain themselves; and the rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration that has occurred since the inception of the Industrial Revolution (an increase of approximately 100 ppm) has done wonders for humanity in this regard. And, it will continue to work wonders in helping us meet the rising food consumption needs of a larger, future population. " (6) So, it turns out, not only is climate change not dangerous, part of what is typically associated with is incredibly helpful! Ulterior Motive? I could go on for awhile in my quest to debunk popular "scientific" misconceptions, getting into areas concerning non-climate-change air pollution, or even talking about endangered species. But I think debunking the two previous theories has made case in point: the majority of scientific environmental problems are either non-existent, or so minimal as to not cause great concern (though I have made an exception for ground water). But now, as I close, I would like to address another popular misconception I occasionally hear. It is usually phrased in such a manner as this: "Well, when did we stop believing scientists? Where would we be today if not for the great scientists who discovered life-saving medicines, how gravity works, and even increased farming techniques? " I don't deny for a minute that scientists have contributed much to society as a whole. Honest, hardworking men and women of our world in the field of science deserve much appreciation and credit for what they have done. However, some scientists, by choice or lack thereof, have made the choice to confirm and support scientific theories for which there is little merit or evidence. Why? Simple, yet sad. It is a matter of money. "Most scientific research is funded by government grants (e. g. , from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, etc. ), companies doing research and development, and non-profit foundations (e. g. , the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, etc. )" (7) The fact of the matter is, scientists need money to participate in research. And while some certainly is provided my honest entities or groups interested in real scientific progress, vast amounts are also provided my groups with an agenda. Think about it. Can a group like the National Science Foundation perhaps show a need to receive more funding if they can provide a good reason for it? What about aiding the fight against world depravity brought upon by natural disasters, real or potential, that were caused by man's activity? After all, more funding from the treasury means added funds for foundation employees' Christmas bonuses, right? But of course to receive such increased funding they would have to show research that backed up their claims. Now, who do you think would be more likely to receive money for scientific research in this scenario? The scientist who supported climate change, or the one who did not? Or, what about the Breast Cancer Research Foundation? Let's suppose for a moment that they, a large organization, one of the largest in the country, managed to finally come up with a cheap, simple, easy cure for cancer (unlikely, perhaps, but please, bear with me for the purpose of this example). Wonderful, now their non-profit mission has finally been achieved. .. now what? Does that mean the Foundation closes? High paid non-profit corporate officers suddenly get their salaries taken away because donations have stopped coming in? After all, why should they come in? Breast cancer is cured, why is there need for more funding? The funding is only needed. .. so long as cancer is still a problem. .. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, but the fact remains, the temptation to use large sums of money in a way that does not benefit people everywhere, but benefits one's own self, is a hard draw for all but the most up right and honest, to be sure. This concludes my argument for Round 2. I enjoyed making it, and should enjoy reading my opponent's own argument. Sources: 1. . http://www.explainthatstuff.com... 2. . https://www.lifesitenews.com... 3. . http://www.sciencealert.com... 4 . . https://www.friendsofscience.org... 5. . http://www.rense.com... 6. . http://plantsneedco2.org... 7. . http://undsci.berkeley.edu...