Opposing Views On Global Warming

Since the 1900s, scientists have recorded droughts, wildfires, and melting polar ice caps as a result of the planet slowly heating up. Global warming can impact animals in the poles, farmers growing crops in a drought, or normal people in their everyday lives. There are places on earth that have an air quality index that is labeled as hazardous. This was first realized as a possible issue by a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius (1859 - 1927). He figured out that fossil fuel combustion could eventually result in global warming. It did, indeed. He and Thomas Chamberlin realized that the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from human activity could result in climate change. My perspective one is that it’s natural, and it will happen anyway. My perspective two is that global warming is human’s fault, and we need to stop polluting the environment. People who believe in this perspective may also believe that we have to take action to improve our planet for future generations. Next, I will go into more detail of the perspectives. …show more content…
One example of evidence that supports this perspective (pro) is that now it’s something we don’t have to worry about, and it would happen anyway. Also, people may believe that it will solve itself and it’s not a big deal. There was a 2010 Anderegg study that found 97-98% of climate change scientists publishing most frequently agree that human activity is mainly responsible for global warming. On the other hand, it can be argued that this perspective does not believe that it is humans fault and it doesn’t think about how the future earth will be impacted by global warming. In conclusion, the perspective of global warming being natural has both pros and