Knowing that the environment is at risk from the changing climate, I think it important that an appropriate decision is reached. Between the argument of Kolbert and Malm. I think by proving there point and reading both of their articles, they take both sides of their argument to the extreme. Both authors think that global warming is real, but Kolbert thinks that it was the majority of the humans fault of how warm the earth has gotten. Malm says that there are many thing being adulterated in the scale of energy emitted around the globe he points out that “an average Canadian uses 1000 fold more energy than a substance astrologist in the Sahel.” His point that even though the energy difference is very significant, the opposing side is using those statistics to make global warming more than what it really is. In my opinion, we should not accept these new rules because I think that the rate at which the climate is rising is over dramatized. I also think that there are a large scale of third parties in the alternative energy department that are tying to pass off how fast the climate is rising in order to benefit there status quo.
My opinion with people changing there opinions due to the audience, or persuasion towards one side is very real. You would have to be the biggest idiot to believe that “climate change isn’t real”. But are oil companies going to say that that it is? Hurting them selves by doing so? Umm no of course not. Dr. Cathy Whitlock brought up very good points about climate science and how that has reflect upon us locals in the past few years, especially in the Mussel shell county. But even in her research, there were still a few questions that in my assessment were not answered if the cause of some of her results were due to climate change. But I think pointing out that the community came together to discuss what all has been happening with the river and talking about the climate has greatly benefit them. Communication is defensively key with topics like these.