We take a closer look at the climate change controversy in our unbiased examination of both sides of the debate.
The climate change debate concerns the impact of human activity on the earth’s temperature, as well as its impact on weather patterns, plant-life, wildlife, and human health.
On one side of this controversial topic, most in the scientific community believe that human activity is responsible for climate change. On the other side, some journalists, political leaders, and industry advocates argue either that global climate change is not actually occurring, or that shifts in climate are natural meteorological patterns unrelated to human activity. Some also argue that economic imperatives should be prioritized over environmental concerns.
The ongoing public controversy over climate change makes this a popular persuasive essay topic.
The goal of this discussion is to examine the various perspectives shaping the debate topic concerning climate change, and to provide you with a look at some of the figures past and present who have influenced the discussion around this controversial topic. The figures selected may not always be household names, but are instead selected to provide a simultaneously broad and nuanced look at the public discourse on this subject, and in some cases, even to provide you with a list of individuals to contact as part of your research.
According to the BBC, the Earth’s population roughly doubled between 1800 and 1930, growing from one billion to two billion people in a little over a century. That period of time also encompassed an industrial revolution in which steam, coal, oil, and steel powered our world from feudalism into modernity. Cars were invented. Factory production proliferated. Cities grew into towering population clusters teeming with activity. The BBC reports that by 1927, carbon emissions from fossil fuels and industrial activities amounted to roughly one billion tons a year.
As technology emerged and production accelerated, smoke poured into the air, metals seeped into the water supply, and chemicals permeated ground soil. By 1938, a British engineer named Guy Callendar was able to demonstrate using records from 147 weather stations around the world that both temperatures and observable CO2 concentration had increased over the past century.
As technology emerged and production accelerated, smoke poured into the air, metals seeped into the water supply, and chemicals permeated ground soil...and observable CO2 concentration had increased over the past century.”
Though meteorologists of the time dismissed his conclusions, Callendar’s findings would be confirmed repeatedly as climate scientists investigated the topic across the 1950s. And in 1965, under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, a U.S. President’s Advisory committee became the first American governmental body to acknowledge the potential threat posed to life on earth by “the greenhouse effect,” which denotes that CO2 emissions trapped in the earth’s atmosphere were causing a pattern of global warming.
Ten years later, with the world population topping four billion, a U.S. scientist named Wallace Broecker published a paper proliferating use of the “global warming” terminology. This period of time saw the emergence of an environmentalism movement, largely sparked by public-facing environmental calamities like the hydrogen bomb test at Bikini Atoll, a number of high-profile coastal oil spills, and a concentration of pollution so severe in the Great Lakes and surrounding tributaries that, in 1969, Cleveland’s Cuyahoga River literally caught on fire.
As the environmental movement gained momentum in the 1970s, so too did a force of resistance to findings about global warming. In particular, advocates for the fossil fuel industries viewed the environmental movement as a threat to the free market rights of the oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas sectors. Thus began the push and pull shaping today’s climate change discussion. As many scientists, world leaders, and governments grapple to reign in fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions, fossil fuel lobbyists also enjoy the support of some government groups, world leaders, and select pockets of the scientific community. Over the course of the 1990s and 2000s, efforts such as the Kyoto Protocol (1992) and the Paris Agreement (2016) have sought to bring the world together around certain collective goals. But as best demonstrated by the United States’ entry into and exit from both accords, the shape of political leadership has a direct connection to the way that a given global entity aligns on the issue of climate change.
Advocates for the fossil fuel industries viewed the environmental movement as a threat to the free market rights of the oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas sectors. Thus began the push and pull shaping today's climate change discussion.”
Using our own backstage Ranking Analytics tools, we’ve compiled a list of the most influential figures concerning the issue of climate change in the U.S. between 1900 and 2020. Our Rankings produced a list of prominent political figures, climate change scientists, and activists who both recognize and dispute the reality or impact of global climate change. Though we typically vet such lists to exclude political leaders, some public office holders-former Vice President Al Gore in particular-have had a profound influence over the climate change debate outside of their formal duties as elected officials. Therefore, no such vetting has been done here.
Using our own backstage Ranking Analytics tools, we’ve compiled a list of the most influential books on the topic of climate change in the U.S. between 1900 and 2020. This list is comprised both of texts by climate change skeptics and by those asserting the scientific reality of, and the need to confront, global climate change.
|1||Merchants of Doubt|
|2||Deploying Renewables 2011|
|4||Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation|
|5||State of Fear|
|7||The Skeptical Environmentalist|
|8||The Carbon Diaries: 2015|
|9||The Revenge of Gaia|
|10||The Weather Makers|
The push and pull, particularly waged between the scientific community and the energy industries, as well as political allies on both sides, effectively captures the current controversy.
In 2006, with the earth’s population exceeding seven billion people, carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and industry activities topped eight billion tons per year. Those who recognize climate change as a consequence of human activity argue that the use of fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases, which get trapped in the earth’s atmosphere and have caused a gradual (and increasingly rapid) warming of the earth. This warming, say many scientists, is producing a wide range of negative ecological impacts from growing deserts, more frequent wildfires, more severe tropical storms, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and various deleterious impacts on wildlife habitats in rainforests, oceans, freshwater, and woodlands. Humans are also suffering the impact of climate change, argue climate change scientists, from diminished air quality and tainted drinking water to food shortages and increasingly deadly weather events.
Many fossil fuel companies, lobbyists, and business-sympathetic public office-holders publicly deny the existence of global climate change or alternately acknowledge that while global warming may be occurring, it is not demonstrably the result of human activity.”
On the opposite end of the spectrum are fossil fuel companies, lobbyists, and business-sympathetic public office-holders, many of whom publicly deny the existence of global climate change or alternately acknowledge that while global warming may be occurring, it is not demonstrably the result of human activity.
There are select members of the scientific community—though they are not part of the majority consensus on the topic—who argue that today’s patterns of climate change are consistent with the varying climate patterns that have occurred naturally over the course of the earth’s history. Sometimes referred to as “climate change deniers,” or “climate change skeptics,” this group may include petroleum engineers, technologists, and geologists with practical, ideological, or professional ties to the fossil fuels industry.
Collectively, these groups are likely to hold the position that claims about the existence and danger of global climate change are false or exaggerated, and that they do not justify curtailing economic activity, production, and industry through environmental regulation. By contrast, environmental activists, conservationists, climate scientists, and many others in the scientific community argue that global climate change is real, that it is caused by human activity, that we are already feeling it’s increasingly severe consequences, and that preservation of the planet and life on this planet requires immediate mitigation through meaningful environmental regulation.
Many others in the scientific community argue...that preservation of the planet and life on this planet requires immediate mitigation through meaningful environmental regulation.”
Learn More about the current issue with a look at the Top Influential Earth Scientists Today.Back to Top
Our goal in presenting subjects that generate controversy is to provide you with a sense of some of the figures both past and present who have driven debate, produced widely-recognized works of research, literature or art, proliferated their ideas widely, or who are identified directly and publicly with some aspect of this debate. By identifying the researchers, activists, journalists, educators, academics, and other individuals connected with this debate-and by taking a closer look at their work and contributions-we can get a clear but nuanced look at the subject matter. Rather than framing the issue as one side versus the other, we bring various dimensions of the issue into discussion with one another. This will likely include dimensions of the debate that resonate with you, some dimensions that you find repulsive, and some dimensions that might simply reveal a perspective you hadn’t previously considered.
On the subject of Climate Change, this requires us to consider environmental activists, conservationists, and climate scientists just as it requires us to consider global warming deniers, fossil fuel advocates, and climate change skeptics.
Our InfluenceRanking engine gives us the power to scan the academic and public landscape surrounding the climate change issue using key terminology to identify consequential influencers. As with any topic that generates public debate and disagreement, this is a subject of great depth and breadth. We do not claim to probe either to the bottom of this depth or to the borders of this breadth. Instead, we offer you one way to enter into this debate, to identify key players, and through their contributions to the debate, to develop a fuller understanding of the issue and perhaps even a better sense of where you stand.
For a closer look at how our InfluenceRankings work, check out our our methodology.
Otherwise get started with a look at the key words we used to explore this subject:Back to Top
Global Warming Awareness refers to the ongoing public campaign-which largely emerged in the late 1960s-to create greater recognition and understanding of climate change, its causes, and its impacts. Figures involved in the push for greater awareness are supported by broad scientific consensus that human activities are leading to climate change and its degrading effects on the environment. Most influencers in this area advocate for mitigation through changes in industry and everyday human activity.
What initially began as a campaign to create greater awareness of the phenomenon called “global warming” eventually became a full-scale movement around the concept of global climate change. This phrasing denotes that global warming is merely one symptom of a broader set of effects on our climate, weather patterns, and ecological balance. Those who acknowledge the negative impacts of global climate change include climate scientists, ecologists and public health experts, who largely align with the general scientific consensus that human activity has impacted the earth’s climate in myriad negative ways. This is the prevailing view also informing widely shared global agreements on curbing CO2 emissions such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
Climate change denial is a position staked out by a variety of academics, journalists, public office-holders, and advocates for the fossil fuel industries. Those who hold this position reject scientific consensus that the earth’s climate is undergoing changes or, alternately, reject the idea that these changes have been caused by human activity.
Like climate change denial, the group referred to as climate change skeptics refute the scientific consensus surrounding global climate change. Those who consider themselves skeptics often argue that there is compelling scientific evidence contrasting the dominant theories on human-caused climate change. In particular, climate change skeptics often argue that while climate shifts have occurred, these are consistent with climate shifts throughout the earth’s history, including those predating human history. This suggests, according to skeptics, that claims about the impact of human activity on climate patterns are either overstated or inaccurate.
An early and important exponent of the environmental movement, conservationism concerns protection of our natural surroundings including land, ocean, freshwater, air, and wildlife habitats. The conservation movement is a significant front in the effort to stop and reverse global climate change. Conservationists offer firsthand knowledge of the impacts of human activity and global climate change on wildlife and their habitats, and provide supporting evidence of the mitigation strategies that might offset these impacts.
Environmental Activism is something of a catch-all for the many groups, agencies, and segments of the population that have worked toward stronger regulation, oversight, and enforcement around activities that they argue are causing environmental harm and climate change. Activism can include public demonstrations, protests, public information campaigns, policy engagement, and a wide range of other activities designed to improve public awareness, lifestyle decisions, and legal environmental protections.
Among the most vocal critics of the prevailing scientific research on climate change are representatives of the fossil fuel industries. This includes energy scientists, political lobbies, and corporate leaders, who collectively argue that the CO2 emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels like petroleum and coal are not the cause of global climate change, that the impacts of global climate change have been exaggerated, and that the economic imperatives driving these industries supersede claims about the impact of these industries on public health or the environment.
If you would like to study this topic in more depth, check out these key organizations...
No matter which side of the debate you fall on, most agree that there are a few things that humans can do to make a smaller footprint on our planet, for the benefit of all. Here are a few:
America is one of the top countries with the highest percentage of food waste. Up to 40% of the food purchased by Americans is wasted. We may reduce food waste by only buying what we need, consuming leftovers, composting garbage, and donating more to food banks.
Going vegan can reduce your carbon footprint further than switching to a vegetarian diet. Even reducing your meat consumption a bit may reduce your carbon footprint by a third and will allow you to help cut global warming.
Fossil fuels are the main source of greenhouse gas emissions, (according to climate change supporters). Divesting entails withdrawing your funds from organizations that support the development of fossil fuels, which could eventually cause financing for those initiatives to dry up.
Improved insulation is one of the most affordable and widely available strategies to tackle climate catastrophe. Up to 35% of the heat within older homes can escape through the walls. Modern insulation lowers the energy required to heat a home, lowering emissions and your heating costs.
Your home’s cooling costs will drop if you switch to LED lighting. They will save you money over the long run because they last longer than other bulbs. Widespread use of LED lighting will substantially reduce carbon emissions.
Recycling can cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions between 2020 and 2050 by 5.5 to 6.02 gigatons. Recycling and waste are fundamentally related since recycling transforms trash into new products. As we use recycled materials, this relationship helps to reduce potent greenhouse gas emissions, promote a positive climate system, and push for global environmental initiatives.
However, improper recycling can impede the process and increase waste. To ensure that what you recycle isn’t contaminating the environment, rinse your recyclables and keep up with local laws. Read EPA’s guide on recycling.
Interested in building toward a career on the front lines of the climate change debate? As you can see, there are many different avenues into this far-reaching issue. Use our Custom College Ranking to find:
Interested in diving into another one of our controversial topics? Check out The 30 Most Controversial Topics Today!
For study starters, influential books, and much more, check out our full collection of study guides.
Or get tips on studying, student life, and much more with a look at our Student Resources.