Advocacy- what is the right way to view the problem?

Introduction
Since the late 19th century, the middling temperature of the globe and the oceans has been rising and is projected to continue rising. The average shell temperature of the world has augmented by 0.8 °C, during the same period with more than two-thirds of the increase occurring since 1980. There has been much political discourse regarding whether the cause of the earth warming is the human use
of fossil fuels. Whereas the earth temperature has increased by 1.4 °F, the increase has not caused any noticeable problem. There is no convincing evidence that the use of fossil fuels by the humans is causing or will cause in the near future a catastrophic disruption of the earths climate. Restricting carbon emission will damage the economy and is a decision based on unconfirmed and disputed claims.
The U.S. Vice-president Al Gore signed a treaty to ration world energy in the December 1997 in Kyoto Japan. The decision was based on the fear that human use of fossil fuels is causing global warming. The United States senate declined to ratify the treaty, and it is still pending. The decision reached in 1997 at the Kyoto protocol was anchored largely on the view that the scientific community agreed with the notion that human activity is the cause of global warming. Human-caused global warming is a hypothesis that enjoys the support of many scientists across the United States and the globe. However, any scientific claim must have factual backing and should be geared toward the betterment of the human situation
Advocacy- what is the right way to view the problem?
According to Cicio (2009), implementing the Kyoto protocol will harm the economy. Capping the emission of carbon in the industrial sector will increase the imports, reduce investments, and cause unemployment (Cicio). The world is more integrated than ever, local industries are facing competition from industries on the other side of the globe from countries, such as India and China. Industries remain afloat in a highly competitive market by minimizing the cost of production. The high population and low standards of living in countries like India and China place industries located there at an advantage because they have a cheap source of labor. Obligating the United States industries to cap their emissions places them at a further disadvantage. Countries like India and china are in no hurry to implement such legislations therefore; the U.S. industries will be forced to relocate if they are to survive. I agree with Cicio view because the measures proposed by the proponents of the Kyoto protocol are too radical whereas the available scientific data suggest natural causes have a more profound effect on the earths climate (CFIF). A strong correlation exists between the suns radiation output and the earths temperature. There is no empirical data to sustain the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. The proponents of this hypothesis depend on computer model calculations that erroneous and are invalidated by numerous observations. NASA has noted that the suns output has been increasing and even the ice caps in Mars are shrinking. The earths temperature has been changing since the end of the ice age and most of the time human has had no hand in the matter (Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF)).
Ezroj (2010) is in favor of the cap and trade policy. He proposes growth of the financial sector because of climate monetary exchange. He holds the view that the market for carbon capture technology will increase significantly in the next few decades. Ezroj provide examples of countries that have successfully implemented the Kyoto protocol with arguable success. The carbon market has recently emerged and has seen remarkable increase throughout the world. In 2008, the world carbon market was worth 92 billion dollars. According to Ezroj, the development of alternative sources of energy will remedy the high cost of production; however, Ezroj argument places the cart in front of the horse by proposing a shift toward sustainable energy before the development of the appropriate technology to sustain clean production (Ezroj 05). The need to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment is evident; however, to claim the matter is an emergency by insinuating human activity is the cause of global warming is unwarranted. I disagree with Ezroj because carbon dioxide is the main green house gas produced by the industries, and constitutes only a minor fraction of the green house gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor has a more profound effect that CO2; however, current proponents of the Kyoto protocol focus of the effect of the minor CO2 on the temperature. To the contrarily, the increase in atmospheric CO2 may be what the human need at a time when the population is increasing and the arable land for growing crop is encroached by urban centers. High atmospheric CO2 increases the growth rate of plants and reduces the loss of water to the atmospheres therefore; crops grow faster and do better in drier areas. Animals will also increase proportionally as the plants spread into drier areas (Pontius 30). Experiments conducted since 1940 indicate a six fold increase in the content of hydrocarbon in the atmosphere; however, this has not affected the earths temperature and climate trends that seem to be on the recuperation from the little ice age 200 to 500 years ago, with close association to the solar activities observed by NASA (Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF)).
According to a report by the United Nation, the high-demand for commodities leads to the extraction of natural resources from the environment. This results in the increased emission of Green House Gases (GHG). The report focuses on the South American continent where many mining and processing industries are located. The report claims that the harm brought about by the climate change is more costly than the benefit incurred from the economic growth because of the mining activities. I disagree with the UN report because the premise of this argument is fraud. The report assumes that the sole cause of the global warming is human activity like mining; however, it is clear that nature forces, such as solar activity play a more prominent role (United Nations Publications). Historical records indicate that about 200 to 500 years ago, the globe was experiencing a little ice age. The temperatures during this period were much lower than the temperatures during the Medieval climate Optimum. The Medieval climate optimum occurred about 1,000 years ago, and the temperatures were warm sufficiently to permit the colonization of Greenland and the production of tropical crops in most of the current temperate regions. The mainframe models used to stimulate the results of a human-caused global warming have significant qualms and are grossly unpredictable. The atmosphere is a complex, non-linear dynamic system, which is hard to replicate using a computer model. Even with the rising global temperatures, the Sargasso Sea is yet to achieve its average temperature for the past 3,000 years. The temperatures of regions vary greatly, depending on the geographical location and the unique climatological characteristics. The global average temperature is therefore less meaning and contains multiple faults created by the dissimilar aspects exclusive to each geographical region and the addition of regions in which the temperature records are undependable (Arthur, Noah & Willie 09).
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) holds the same view as the UN; however, it proposes a different approach to the issue. The IMF advises government to come with legislations that encourages industries to produce environmental friendly products. The IMF is in favor of carbon taxes over the cap and trade policy. The argument is that carbon taxes set a stable price for the emission of carbon. This approach imposes higher taxes on some countries, such as China, and is therefore less likely to win the support of the international community. I disagree with this view because the human civilization as it is depends on the availability of abundant low-cost energy. In the developed nations, the populations are enjoying prosperity whereas the developing nations are using the same technology to improve their living standards. The use of hydrocarbons is essential to the continued prosperity of the human race. If for any reason people restrict the use of hydrocarbons, the prosperity currently underway will seize. The result will be increased individual suffering and the trouncing of millions of lives. Mild changes in the average earths temperature occur normally without the intervention of humans. This result of the changes is improved climate and slight changes in the earths landscape. The content of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased significantly; however, the consequence on temperature is so trivial that it is undetectable experimentally or is none existent. The earths temperature is continuing its process of fluctuation in response to a various natural phenomena (International Monetary Fund (IMF)).
Conclusion
It is clear that the world temperatures are controlled by natural phenomena. Human activities, such as mining and the use of hydrocarbons do not have any measurable effect on the earths temperature; however, other natural phenomena have a capacity to change the earths temperature substantially. Solar activity and other natural effects could result in the earth becoming too hot or too cold for the humans to live comfortably. It would be necessary for humans to adjust the temperature of the earth to an optimum level. In a scenario where the earth becomes too cold, current technology cannot remedy the situation. Burning fossil fuels and the pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere would certainly not remedy the situation. The only way to survive would be the use of nuclear power and hydrocarbons to heat up living and working spaces.
If the earth were to become too hot, the current technology allow for the artificial adjustment of the earths temperature to one the humans desire. Even in such a scenario it is highly unlikely humans would settle for the current temperature as the optimum one. Using airplanes, the scientist could place fine particles in the upper atmosphere to obstruct the suns rays and chill the earth. It would cost approximately $1 billion per year to reduce the temperature by 1 ºC to 3 ºC. This is an effective and economic method for reducing the world temperature. World energy rationing would not work because the emission of CO2 has no correlation to the rising world temperature. The energy rationing would only result in suffering, poverty, and eventually mass death as the global temperatures rise whereas the authorities continue misdiagnosing the problem.
 Works cited
Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon. Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12 (2007): 1-11.
Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF). Mars and Pluto Climates Warming, Al Gore Scours for Extraterrestrial SUVs.CFIF.ORG, 2013. Web. 11 November 2013. Retrieved from: http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htm
Cicio, P. Competitiveness and climate policy: avoiding Leakage of jobs and emissions. USA: Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, 2009.
Ezroj, A. How to cap and trade will Fuel the global Economy. Environmental law Reporter, 2010.
International Monetary Fund. External Relations Dept. Finance & Development, March 2008 (EPub). New York: International Monetary Fund, 2008.
Pontius, Fred. "Another View on Global Warming." American Water Works Association.Journal 100.8 (2008): 28-36.
United Nations Publications. Cepal Review: Economic Commission for Latin America  and the Caribbean. USA: United Nations Publications, 2010.