America's sweetheart  --  more notably a famous science teacher  --  Bill Nye said recently "Climate is changing, it's our fault, we've got to get to work on this, and if you're a denier; you're wrong." (Bill Nye Film) This emphatic and assertive statement is a perfect example of how the subject of climate change is discussed in American society: with little room for an opinion that lands in between the two sides. As Eldridge Cleaver states "there is no neutrality in the world. You either have to be part of the solution, or you're going to be part of the problem". (Cleaver) Though the majority of the public acknowledges the validity of climate change, there are an alarming number of skeptics who believe it is not a serious concern, or are convinced that the idea is fabricated altogether. Those who are skeptical of climate change are not only misinformed, but are a danger to our ability as a species to rectify the climate in a timely manner. With only one known habitable planet in the universe and no current, feasible means of colonizing another, climate change should be humanity's primary concern as it is the most pressing threat to our survival. This paper operates off the premise that climate change is a real phenomenon, that it is caused by humans, and that there are actions that can be taken to combat and reverse its affects. This paper will address not only the science behind climate change, but will also investigate some of the factors that lead to the birth of a climate change skeptic. The value of being able to identify what makes one a skeptic can be related to the understanding of basic algebra. It presents you with a solution to the problem. Because there are multiple variables that are associated with denying climate change, once we isolate the skeptic's reasons for doubting climate change, we are more easily able to refute their stance and prove them wrong. This paper aims to analyze the most prominent adversary to action on climate change, the Republican Party.

Climate change as an environmental concern was first brought into the eye of the public in 1975 when William Nordhaus published his Red-Line Theory. Nordhaus proposed that if the global average temperature were to pass a certain threshold, unpredictable patterns of environmental change would occur. (Ball) This notion was further specified when a United Nations panel concluded "a two-degree shift can be viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems are expected to increase rapidly". (Ball) The increase in global temperatures can be attributed to the rise in carbon dioxide and other gasses in our atmosphere. Since the beginning of industrialization, humans have been burning fossil fuels and releasing gasses into the atmosphere, creating a greenhouse effect that has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Our ozone layer regulates the amount of radiation that both enters and leaves our atmosphere, and there are three primary ways to alter the radiation balance. The first and second (respectively) are changes in the incoming radiation  --  shifts in earth's orbit or in the sun itself  --  and changes in cloud cover or atmospheric particles. (Solomon 96) The third and final means of changing the radiation balance is "by altering the longwave radiation from Earth back towards space". (Solomon 96) In layman's terms, the third process is where human activity  --  both carbon dioxide emissions and mass deforestation  --  comes into play. The natural purpose of greenhouse gases is to create a "blanket" layer and absorb the suns radiation and heat, however if too much gas is present, the blanket thickens and the temperature rises as the gasses do not allow the radiation to leave the atmosphere. (Solomon 97) The increased temperature alone is not what threatens our safety, but instead the danger lies in the feedback mechanisms that are altered by the climate. "For example, as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases warm Earth's climate, snow and ice begin to melt. This melting reveals darker land and water surfaces that were beneath the snow and ice, and these darker surfaces absorb more of the Sun's heat, causing more warming, which causes more melting, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle." (Solomon 97). These feedback loops are dangerous because once set in motion they are very difficult to impede and can result in an environment that is not habitable to humans. 

A key factor in understanding the urgency of climate change is the timeline. The earth has been enduring natural feedback loops and climate fluctuations for its entire period of existence, meaning one may argue that the reported increase in temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere is simply part of one of earth's warming periods. Yet historically, fluctuations occur over long periods of time, which makes the current trend in increased CO2 unique. In 1750 at the time of the invention of the steam engine, our atmosphere contained approximately 250 parts per million (ppm) of CO2. Today, that number is approximately 400 ppm of CO2, meaning CO2 levels have nearly doubled in just two centuries  --  a blink of an eye when compared to the age of our planet. (Bill Nye Film) The rapid increase in CO2 has the ability to influence the ocean's levels, temperatures, and even affect the size and frequency of natural disaster events. The scientific community as an overwhelming majority has reached the agreement that the effects of carbon dioxide levels will result in climate change; yet many people still openly deny the phenomenon exists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading body in climate change research, and provides a reputable collection of information that is available to the public. This leads us to examine an integral theory of climate change skepticism, the idea that one must be a scientist to and interpret and accept data.

The most notable concentration of climate change antagonists of comes in the form of the Republican Party. "We define the rejection of science as the dismissal of well- established scientific results for reasons that are not scientifically grounded". (Diethelm & McKee) This excerpt perfectly applies to the subject of climate science, as "GOP candidates in last year's midterm elections began routinely responding to climate questions by throwing up their hands and repeating some variation of, "I'm not a scientist." (Sargent 34) However, 90% of leading scientists agree that the climate is changing due to carbon dioxide emissions, and have published to the public great amounts of comprehensible research to support their claims. (Lewandowsky 622) What makes these papers any less credible than the advice of a doctor, which we so eagerly obey? If nine out of ten doctors told you that taking a certain medicine would improve your rapidly ailing health, would you then pursue an MD to confirm the truth of their statement before proceeding; or would you take the medicine with the knowledge that they are trained and knowledgeable in their field of study? The sensible answer is to trust the individuals who are trained in their field, and the same approach should be taken when applied to climate change. The IPCC reminds us in its 2007 report on the climate that "science is inherently self-correcting; incorrect or incomplete scientific concepts ultimately do not survive repeated testing against observations of nature." (Solomon 95) This strengthens the conclusion that the current science behind climate change must be valid, as the concept would not have reached the forefront of scientific and political discussion had it not been confirmed by the majority of scientists it encountered. 

 With Republican leaders openly denying climate change, it is more important than ever to separate fact from fiction and recognize why this rhetoric is dangerous. The greatest adversity to action comes from the strategy of republican leaders, which involves either denial of the concept, or a redirect suggesting that taking action on climate change would negatively impact another aspect of American life. As described by journalist Greg Sargent "the GOP  --  one of the two major parties that govern the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases  --  has for years responded by developing a complex, shifting series of denial mechanisms that preclude any serious participation in the debate over solutions." (Sargent 34)  The idea that supporting action on limiting emissions and reducing our carbon footprint comes at the cost of a solid economy is a staple argument of the conservative party, but is still preferable to the strategy of complete denial of the problem. Republicans who do not entirely deny climate change do bring up the concern that America is not a whole planet, and the task of reversing our emissions is not possible without global cooperation. China is the primary globe's primary offender; responsible for 24.7% of the world's global CO2 emissions, with the United States in second place at 16.2%. (Ball). Despite being a detrimental attitude towards improvement of the situation, the republican's claims are true. However, this attitude is a poor approach because it suggests that we must wait for some other nation to lead by example and pass large-scale resolutions to reduce emission levels, or allow the private sector to solve the issue on its own schedule. 

Though the Republicans continue to denounce taking action on climate change, one of the largest businesses in the world has taken a heavy interest in slowing its effects. Insurance providers operate on the ability to accurately and precisely project future "event sets". (Ball) The providers set costs so "the revenue from the premiums outpaces the costs of claims, corporate income rises, and investors bid up the stock." (Ball) Insurance companies rely on their models when attempting to set costs, so even slight deviations in projected outcomes can have costly affects. With the increasing unpredictability of the climate, the model sets become increasingly inaccurate, and will continue to do so as the state of the climate deteriorates. For this reason, Insurance companies have begun to lobby heavily in favor of reduced emissions and efforts to clean our atmosphere, as inaccurate curves present a financial threat. (Ball) Though the Republicans may have created a stalemate in the political front, big business has the potential to put more money and resources into climate control than government, and is our best hope of reducing climate change looking ahead.

Altogether, republicans fail to see the big picture that climate change paints for our future. Without timely action, CO2 emissions will continue to rise, and the state of the planet will become increasingly unpredictable and hostile to life as we know it. Though Republicans claim they are acting in our best interest by protecting the free market, they are misguided in their priorities.  The economy will be the least of our worries when rising ocean levels wipe out entire coastal cities, and we struggle to safely breathe the air in our atmosphere. The problem is not one that can be put off for the next generation to deal with, as the environment's feedback loops are already being set into motion. "Last year, a report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that temperatures are "more likely than not" to exceed 4  Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2100." (Ball) That temperature increase is more than double the threshold outlined by Nordhaus in his red line theory, and means that we are far exceeding even recent climate projections. At this point, our best hope is that big business leads the charge to rectify the damage we have done to our planet, because it is clear the Republican party will not allow the government to address this problem.

