Wolf 1

Rachel Wolf

Professor Heather Johnson-Taylor

English 1201 Online

9 July 2019

Annotated Bibliography

In my essay, I will be looking to answer a question that is more pertinent now than ever

before – is global warming nature’s cycle, or a human-created phenomenon? To answer this

question, I will review the science on both sides of the argument to obtain the insight I’m

seeking.

Callery, Susan. “Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet.” Edited by Holly Shaftel, NASA:

Climate Change, NASA. 2 July 2019, climate.nasa.gov/. Accessed 5 July 2019.

Susan Callery is the scientific editor of NASA’s website devoted to the breakdown of

climate change, which was last updated on 12 July 2019. The site is broken into four sections,

titled “Evidence”, “Causes”, “Effects”, and “Scientific Consensus”.

Taking a look at evidence throughout history, the Earth’s climate has experienced much

change. In the last 650,000 years alone, there have been numerous cycles of glacial advancement

followed by retreat, seeing the conclusion of the last ice age around 7,000 years ago. The

cessation of the last ice age marked the beginning of what we now know as the modern climate

era, and of human civilization. The contemporary warming trend is of special significance,

quoting a 95% probability of the trend likely being the result of human activity since the mid-20th

century. The signals of climate change have been able to be captured on a larger scale by Earth-
 Wolf 2

orbiting satellites, collecting photos and data about our environment and climate on a global

proportion. While there is a normal warming period following an ice age, the paleoclimatic

evidence found in the rings of trees, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary

rocks suggest that the current warming trend is taking place around ten times faster than an

average ice-age-recovery warming.

The planet’s mean surface temperature has risen a total of around 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit

since the 19th century. This change is largely driven by an increase in carbon dioxide emissions

released into the atmosphere. The bulk of this warming has taken place within the last three

decades, with five of the warmest years on record occurring after the year 2010. The Earth’s

oceans have responded by absorbing a fair amount of this elevated heat, with the top 2,300 feet

of the ocean showing an increased temperature of more than 0.4 degrees Farenheit since the late

1960’s. Two of the Earth’s most notorious ice sheets, in Greenland and Antarctica, have also

diminished in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment reports a loss

of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993-2016 for Greenland, and 127 billion tons of ice

in the same time period for Antarctica. Antarctica’s data for this study shows the rate of ice mass

shrinkage to have tripled in the last decade. Sea levels on a global scale have risen a total of

about 8 inches in the last century. In the last two decades, that rate has increased to double that of

what is was in the previous century, and is accelerating slightly annually. Since the inception of

the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface waters in the oceans have increased by roughly

30%, as a result of human carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed from the atmosphere. This

amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed is increasing by 2 billion tons annually.

The cause of the forementioned statistics is the “greenhouse effect”, where the planet

experiences warming when heat is radiated outward from Earth toward space. Specific gases in
 Wolf 3

the Earth’s atmosphere prevent heat from escaping, such as nitrous oxide, methane, water vapor,

and carbon dioxide. Human activities over the last century, such as the burning of coals and oils,

have caused a steady increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Clearing

land for agriculture and industry have also caused an increase in concentration of those

greenhouse gases, but to a lesser extent. This role of human activity was reviewed in a report

issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), with the conclusion from

1,300 independent scientists that there’s a “more than 95% probability that human activities over

the past 50 years have warmed our planet”.

Changes in the sun’s energy have also been taken into consideration, with the following

takeaway: there are multiple instances of evidence where global warming cannot be explained by

changes originating in the energy from our Sun. The average amount of energy recorded to be

coming from the Sun has either remained consistent, or increased slightly since 1750. If the

Sun’s energy had increased, experts would anticipate trends of warming in all layers of the

atmosphere. Observation shows that the upper layer of the atmosphere is cooling, while the

lower layers of the atmosphere are warming. Finally, climate models that take solar irradiance

changes into consideration have been unable to recreate the noted trend without inclusion of

greenhouse gases.

Future effects of global warming are reviewed by the Third and Fourth National Climate

Assessment Reports, forecasting that the change implemented by global warming will continue

through this century and beyond, the magnitude of which depends on the amount of greenhouse

gases emitted on a global level. Temperatures are anticipated to continue to ascent, the frost-free

season and growing seasons for the agricultural United States are to continue to lengthen,

changes in precipitation patterns are likely to continue in the trend of heavy precipitation events,
 Wolf 4

with more droughts and heat waves expected on the opposite side. Hurricanes are proposed to

become more intense, with sea levels anticipated to rise by as much as 1-4 feet by the year 2100.

A myriad of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals reflect that upwards of

97% of currently publishing climate scientists concur that “climate-warming trends over the past

century are extremely likely due to human activities”. Most of the authoritative scientific

organizations in the world have announced publicly that they stand behind their stance on this

position, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American

Geophysical Union, American Medical Association, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among many others.

This website is one that I look at as highly credible and reliable, as the information is

sourced from and linked directly to a great number of government and scientific reports relating

to the exact topic I’m researching. The tone is informative, easy to digest, and well organized.

The site is updated on a near daily basis, which lets me know the administrators are keeping the

information up to date.

I plan to utilize this source as a way to support the stance that global warming is a

human-made phenomenon. I will be able to take a great amount of historical and current event

topics to support my stance from the information provided here, and have access to many other

reports and journals cited in the resources from NASA that may help me dive more specifically

into a single topic as my research continues.

Khandekar, M. L., et al. “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science.” Pure

& Applied Geophysics, vol. 162, no. 8/9, Aug. 2005, pp. 1557-1586. EBSCOhost, doi:

10.1007/s00024-005-2683-x.
 Wolf 5

M.L. Khandekar’s “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science” first

appeared in Pure & Applied Geophysics as a review of the present status of global warming

science, finishing with a conclusion that global warming is a natural variation of weather cycles.

This scholarly review takes a look at the link between rising carbon dioxide levels and

the rise in climate change, and states that the link is tenuous. Khandekar cites that the impact of

urbanization and land-use change is such that it is providing climate forcing with an equal to, or

more forceful power than green house gases. Sea level variations are also taken into

consideration, being one of the points that climate change scientists point to. Khandekar cites

another source that states that sea level measurements are “even more biased than weather

stations”, located mainly near Northern Hemisphere ports, and are subject to geological

alterations in both a short and long-term scope. Locations in desolate, low population places, do

not report evidence of changes in sea levels. According to National Tidal Facility (NTF) of

Australia, “the historical record shows no visual evidence of any acceleration in the sea level

trends”. They suggest, alternately, that the coastal deterioration and sinking of islands off of their

coast were the result of environmental changes, not rising ocean levels.

Khandekar goes on to review evidence of the any sea level increases being more likely to

have been a natural progression of the slow melting of ice sheets, stating that the continuing sea

level rise has been occurring for 18,000 years, or since the date of the last glacial period ended.

The author notes that it is important to understand that just like melting ice cubes in a glass of

water won’t make it overflow, that the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level

changes. This is supported by the fact that coastal settlements were not submerged 5,500 years

ago, when the Earth was hotter by 3 degrees Farenheit than it is now.
 Wolf 6

The last topic that the author addresses is the popularity of extreme weather events in the

news, and how the public’s perception of them may outweigh the reality of threat. The article

states that American television viewers are three times more likely to see a severe weather

segment on a news station today than they were three decades ago, and that the rising news

coverage of these events and their socio-economic impact have fabricated a perception that these

events are happening more and more. Khandekar cites a survey by Balling & Cerveny that

analyzed the number of severe weather related events in the U.S. and were unable to find an

upward trend in their frequency.

This scholarly review is well cited and well written. I do consider the source to be

reliable and credible, as it was a collaborative effort between three authors that fairly reflect both

sides of the climate change argument.

My interest in this source for my paper is to provide some counterarguments to my own

standpoint. This review gives a long list of items to look into for me to ideally be able to dispute

in my own paper.

Lesierowitz, Anthony, et al. “Politics & Global Warming, April 2019.” Yale Program on Climate

Change Comunication, 16 May 2019,

climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-april-2019/.

Accessed 5 July 2019.

“Politics & Global Warming” is a report that was released by the Yale Program on

Climate Change Communication in partnership with the George Mason University Center for

Climate Change Communication in April 2019. This report was based off the findings of a
 Wolf 7

nationally representative survey distributed by the universities titled “Climate Change in the

American Mind”.

The survey findings listed in this report are descriptive of how Democratic, Independent,

and Republican registered voters view topics such as: climate policies, energy policies, global

warming, and personal or collective action.

The following percentages will be based on the survey results for the category of “Global

Warming Beliefs and Attitudes”. 70% of registered voters surveyed believe that global warming

is happening. That 70% included 95% of liberal democrats, 87% of conservative democrats, 63%

of moderate republicans, and 38% of conservative republicans. A majority of registered voters

surveyed, at 55%, believe that global warming is caused by mostly human activities. That 55%

included 86% of liberal democrats, 71% of conservative democrats, 41% of moderate

republicans, and 21% of conservative republicans. When asked whether they were “worried”

about global warming, 6 in 10 (61%) registered voters said yes. That 61% was comprised of 93%

of liberal democrats, 81% of conservative democrats, 54% of moderate republicans, and 21% of

conservative republicans. There has been an increase of 5 percentage points since March 2018’s

survey in liberal democrats worry of global warming, and 9 percentage point decrease in

conservative republican’s worry of global warming since the same time period.

The following percentages will be based on the survey results for the category of “Global

Warming Energy Policies”. Respondents were asked how much they support three varying

strategies the government could use to curtail the emissions that cause global warming. 87% of

all respondents were in favor of investing in renewable energy research to cut down on pollution

by making clean energy more affordable. 82% of all respondents were in favor of regulation

pollution by requiring companies by law to put a cap on the amount of pollution they emit. 72%
 Wolf 8

of all respondents were in favor of taxing pollution by way of requiring companies to pay a

mandated tax on their emissions, encouraging them to reduce the amounts they produce. Some

other categories worth mentioning were the notion of a policy to regulate carbon dioxide as a

pollutant, coming in with support from 74% of all respondents. The idea of funding more

research for renewable energy (i.e. solar, wind power) had 86% of all respondents votes in favor.

45% of all respondents supported the idea of a U.S. president declaring global warming a

national emergency if Congress doesn’t make moves on the issue.

The following percentages will be based on the survey results for the category of “Acting

on Global Warming & Individual and Collective Action”. 72% of respondents across party lines

agreed that corporations and industries should do more to respond to the threats of global

warming. Of that 72%, 89% were democrats, 77% were independents, and 53% were

republicans. At minimum, over half of the respondents think that citizens (67%), U.S. Congress

(63%), the Republican Party (62%), President Trump (62%), their own member of Congress

(61%), their governor (58%), local government officials (58%), the Democratic party (57%),

and/or the media (53%) should be doing more to address global warming. Concerning individual

and collective action, 51% of the respondents surveyed said that a candidate’s position on global

warming would be enough to warrant a vote from them. Much fewer respondents said they

would engage in efforts to address global warming, with 31% saying they would personally be

willing to contact a government official about the topic, 29% saying they would personally

volunteer for an organization working for the cause, and 30% saying they would personally

donate to an organization making efforts to stop global warming or raise awareness.

This survey was crafted by two well respected educational institutions, Yale and George

Washington University, and the subsequent report was put together as a representation of the data
 Wolf 9

collected from over 1,100 respondents of varying political party affiliations. I look at this data as

straight forward, unbiased, offering a look at how different parties view the topic of global

climate change.

I plan to use this source to help give some numbers and percentages to my paper to

support evidence that have been collected from other sources. Specifically, these numbers show

that everyone, regardless of party association, sees and recognizes that global warming is an

issue and that regulations need to be put in place. It also shows that although that statement is

true, only 30% of those surveyed would ever give an iota of their personal time to the cause. I

think this source raises some interesting questions that are going to be easy to address with the

information provided, and clearly discusses the belief of climate change being man made.

Miller, Keith B. “The Nature of Science and the Public Debate over Anthropogenic Global

Warming.” Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, vol. 64, no. 4, Dec. 2012, pp.

220–229. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=83722757&site=ehost-live.

Keith Miller’s “The Nature of Science and the Public Debate over Anthropogenic Global

Warming” appeared in Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith in December of 2012, where

the author reviews common misconceptions about the nature of science, and how those

misunderstandings of the root of science can alter the public’s opinion of anthropogenic global

warming.

Some of the common misconceptions surrounding the nature of climate change are issues

such as

I. an emphasis on “fact” and a demand for “proof”

 Wolf 10

II. failure to recognize the importance of scale in reference to time and space when

discussing trends

It’s important to understand that there are very few true “facts” in science, more so highly

methodical observations in which our understanding of the world is built. Observations are

fueled by the questions that are being asked – and the limited scope of what one single individual

can observe is why science requires repeated and independent confirmation of observational

findings. This fact also clarifies why the continued diversity of the scientific community is

absolutely vital to its success as a society. To apply meaning and explanation to an observation, it

requires the recognition of pattern. These patterns, these regularities in our world, begin to

suggest underlying, consistent causes of change when they are observed and recognized, which

then lead to an analysis that can generate a scientific theory.

There are some poignant differences between the way that scientists and nonscientists use

the word “theory” – someone not of the science field would often describe the word theory to

mean an “unsubstantiated guess”. Scientists, on the other hand, describe theory as “natural cause-

and-effect explanations for the regularities we observe in the world around us.” Scientific

theories merge differentiating independent observations by recognizing these patterns and trends

within data that give the information observational meaning.

A prominent authority often cited by climate change skeptics, The Skeptics Handbook,

offers some insight into the nonscientist vs. scientist view of theory, models, and observations:

“Computer models are sophisticated, put together by experts, getting better all the time. But even

if they could predict the climate correctly (they can’t), even if they were based on solid proven

theories (they aren’t), they still wouldn’t count as evidence. Models are based on scores of

assumptions and estimates piled on dozens of theories.” Theories are, in fact, the only way to
 Wolf 11

give observations meaning. Models and observations are simply the recording of pattern – theory

is what gives the data meaning, and context. Theory is how we apply the observations and the

models now, in a way that allows us to predict future observations. In other words, an

observation by itself is without meaning.

The emphasis on the demand for proof from that passage in The Skeptics Handbook is

shown clearly in the statement concerning theories that cannot be proven. Emphasis should be

placed on not waiting for an unattainable measure of “proof”; but acting on the best present

understanding of the evidence that is available to us. In reality, it is that very uncertainty that

makes up the true nature of theoretical science. Even the most widely agreed upon theories in the

scientific community are not “proven” to an absolute degree; rather held in different degrees of

acceptance based on the explanation of the theory, and the theories’ predictive power. It is the

culmination of the complete body of evidence, and the weight it holds, not the agreement of

every observation, that allows a theory to be rejected or accepted. Continuing to test current

understanding of a theory against new observations is the sole way to seek out any existing errors

and make headway in our quest for knowledge of our world.

The importance of scale and context when talking about anthropogenic global warming is

straightforward. Often, discussions amongst the public regarding the topics of evolution and

climate change are not talked about with any sense of the relevant scale. Trends can only be truly

understood when they have been given the context of time and space. Scientific theories are

virtually always dependent on scale. Where things start to get misapplied and misunderstood is

when the public believes that the reality of short-term trends will predict long-term trends. For

instance, in 2012, the CWS forecast predicted we’d finish the year without any warming, making

for a total of eleven years without warming, where emissions from carbon also didn’t decline in a
 Wolf 12

momentous way. This led skeptics to the question, “How does one begin to explain that?”. That

decade long interval is just a small portion of a century-long trend of rising global temperatures,

in which the timeframe is also representative of a decline in solar irradiance that occurs as a

natural and cyclical change in solar activity. Even with that being said, nine of those eleven years

were contenders for the top ten warmest years reflected in the modern instrumental record.

Single data points, or singular extreme weather events, should not be used as points to refute a

long-term trend.

This article was published in a journal of The American Scientific Affiliation, and targets

readers who are interested in science and religion. The article takes an informative tone, laying

out some common misconceptions that the public faces concerning global warming, and

addresses each issue individually with skeptic evidence and competing scientific evidence. I find

this source to be both reliable and credible.

I plan to implement this source into my research paper by using the article to offer a fair

view of both sides of the argument on anthropogenic global warming, using the scientific

evidence and knowledge of theory to combat skeptic arguments while showing an unbiased

glimpse at both.

Plumer, Brad; Fountain, Henry. “Gist of Latest Report on Global Warming: Fears Are Now

Reality.” New York Times, vol. 168, no. 58156, 24 Nov. 2018, p. A17. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=133198103&site=ehost-live

Brad Plumer and Henry Fountain’s “Gist of Latest Report on Global Warming: Fears Are

Now Reality” was first published by The New York Times in November of 2018, detailing the
 Wolf 13

current observed effects of global warming based on prior predictions by the National Climate

Assessment.

Global warming is a phenomenon that is becoming more tangible to the average person,

putting the risk of current and future disasters higher on the pedestal than ever. From crop

failures all across the Midwest, to coastal flooding, Volume Two of the latest National Climate

Assessment continues to explore the impacts of climate change. The National Climate

Assessment is a scientific report that is released every four years. 13 federal agencies produced

the 2018 document and it was distributed by the Trump administration. 2018’s report came to

many similar conclusions cited in 2014’s assessment. The findings were that temperatures are

continuing to rise, predicting a positive correlation between wildfires on the Western coast of the

USA. The report details that prior predictions have materialized, with and increasing number of

the previous predicted implications of global warming quickly becoming a reality.

As an example, the 2014 assessment predicted that coastal cities would see a rise in

flooding in the years to come as sea levels continue to rise. This prediction would appear to no

longer be only theoretical, as there have been a record number of documented cases of “nuisance

flooding” in coastal cities such as Charleston, SC, and Miami, FL. A direct quote from the 2018

assessment says, “High tide flooding is now posing daily risks to businesses, neighborhoods,

infrastructure, transportation, and ecosystems in the Southeast.” As the seas continue to warm,

US fisheries are now experiencing the long-predicted disruptions to their businesses due to

fishing expedition catches peaking a month earlier than usual.

The report goes into further detail than just our own backyard, citing climate change as an

international concern that is affecting American companies overseas, and the development in less

prosperous countries. The focus of the 2018 report has turned to prevention along with
 Wolf 14

prediction, stating that in order to limit the physical and monetary damages brought by instances

of deadly heat waves, coastal flooding, and increased likelihood of extreme weather,

communities will need to band together and take precautionary measures to prepare beforehand.

2014’s assessment cautioned that few cities and states were making strides to adapt to the

implications of climate change, but that trend is slowly changing with more and more

communities preserving wetlands along the coasts to act as a buffer during storms. That being

said, there are not many coastal communities that are trying to restructure new and existing

developments to avoid the impacts of an ever-growing sea level.

In conclusion, the 2018 report tells a cautionary tale that the United States is “particularly

underprepared” for the result of rising sea and swamp levels on our coasts, stating, “the potential

need for millions of people and billions of dollars of coastal infrastructure to be relocated in the

future creates challenging legal, financial, and equity issues that have not yet been addressed.

This article was published in the New York Times, reviewing the findings of the most

recent (2018) National Climate Assessment. The New York Times’ target audience is probably a

young to middle-age urban or liberal, but the article doesn’t read very biased, sticking with an

informative and preventative tone. The information of the National Climate Assessment appears

credible and reliable.

I will implement the findings from this source in my research paper by using it to bring

the latter half of my paper to current times. It’s important to review the past before coming full

circle to present, and future predictions. This source is a fair description of some current tangible

impacts of global warming that have been predicted in recent years by the same association.
 Wolf 15

Robinson, Mary. “Why Climate Change is a Threat to Human Rights.” TED: Ideas Worth

Spreading, May 2015,

www.ted.com/talks/mary_robinson_why_climate_change_is_a_threat_to_human_rights.

Mary Robinson’s speech “Why Climate Change is a Threat to Human Rights” first

appeared in May of 2015 as a part of a Ted Talk women’s series. Mary describes growing up

sandwiched in between two older and two younger brothers in the west of Ireland, where she

jokes she had to have an interest in human rights and equality to make it through being the

middle child and the only girl. Her childhood convictions stayed with her through adulthood, and

when she was elected President of Ireland from 1990-1997, she devoted her presidency to

bringing together communities in Ireland and trying to build peace. She describes the

accomplishments in her presidency, and the normal issues she faced during that time, such as

helping to create jobs, stimulate the economy, build their healthcare system and their education

system. What she says she didn’t have to do as President, was think about the implications of

climate change on her own land, the way President Tong of the Republic of Kiribati has. Her

learning of leaders having to deal with immediate implications of global warming was what

sparked a devotion to the topic of human rights and climate change.

Upon visiting Africa, Mary started to learn of climate shocks and changes in weather that

had already been affecting the country. She met with a woman named Constance who had

created a women’s group in Uganda, who shared with her how the periods of drought and flash

floods have laid their long-used methods of predictions to rest. It used to be that the seasons

would come as predicted, and the families knew exactly when to sow and harvest, so food was

available. Now, with the extreme changes in season, harvests and livelihoods have been

destroyed. What struck Mary the most was that the woman telling her this information was not
 Wolf 16

someone who was responsible for the emissions into the atmosphere that were causing the

problem. The average person in Malawi, the area she met Candace in, emits about 80kg of

carbon dioxide a year, whereas the average U.S. citizen emits about 17.5 metric tons. It was

striking to Mary that some of the people who were experiencing this anguish were people who

don’t drive vehicles, do not have electricity, and do not consume in a significant way, yet they

are experiencing the impacts of climate change in ways that aren’t allowing them to grow food

properly. She says, “I think it was really the importance of the injustice that really struck me very

forcibly”.

Mary concludes her speech starting with some changes that need to happen in the world

for us to work toward zero carbon by the year 2050, listing California and Hawaii as states that

have already pledged to start working towards being carbon neutral with ambitious targets to cut

emissions. She goes on to say that industrialized countries must start cutting their emissions,

work towards becoming more energy efficient, and move as quickly as possible into the direction

of renewable energy. This task requires the support of the international community to provide

systems, finances, and technology, because no country can make itself safe from the imminent

dangers of global warming.

This TED speech has a target audience of people, maybe even specifically women, who

have some interest in injustice in the world, or who are interested in policy, or following the

debate on climate change. TED is a pretty nonpartisan platform, and I don’t see much bias in this

speech, just a relaying of facts from Mary’s presidency in Ireland, to her time as a U.N. human

rights commissioner. I find this source to be very reliable and credible, given her background

alone.
 Wolf 17

I would implement some of the information from Mary’s speech into my report as a way

to put a human touch to some of the theories and percentages that are going to be thrown around.

The story of Mary and Candace is incredible to listen to, and it’s a touching way to show that

climate change is not just what we can see outside of our back door, or just here in the U.S. It

gives a real insight to the immediate effects of climate change on people who are not producing

the bulk of the emissions causing the issue in the first place. I believe this will contrast well with

some of the drier information.

Santos, Wildson. “Debate on Global Warming as a Socio-Scientific Issue: Science Teaching

Towards Political Literacy”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol. 9, no. 3, Sept.

2014, pp. 663-674. EBSCOhost, doi: 10.1007/s11422-014-9596-x.

Before the Flood. Directed by Fisher Stevens, performed by Leonardo DiCaprio, Appian Way

Productions, 2016.

Before the Flood is a 2016 film on climate change that was directed by Fisher Stevens

and performed by Leonardo DiCaprio. This film has several take-home points on climate change,

accompanied by some incredible and stark footage of places that have been affected all around

the world. The film follows Leonardo on a journey to at-risk nations, the Arctic, Greenland, the

Sumatran rainforest, India, China, Miami, and many other places that are showing the signs of

climate change.

On his journey, Leonardo meets with various people around the globe, seeing first-hand

what they are experiencing in their day-to-day lives and operations, and what they are observing.

One observation is that Greenland and the Arctic are on course to melt altogether. He interviews

Dr. Enric Sala, who compares the Arctic to an air conditioning unit large enough to cool the
 Wolf 18

entire Northern Hemipshere, and says that if that goes away, it will alter currents and weather

patterns. Another observation made in the film is that although China is currently the world’s

largest source of pollution, it also sustainable energy’s largest investor, coming in in 2015 with

36% of all of the world’s investment for renewable energy sources. There is also discussion of

the recent trend of coral reef loss, citing that 50% of all coral has been lost within the last 30

years.

DiCaprio meets with Michael E. Mann, Penn State Earth System Science Center Director

who is responsible for the “hockey stick graph” that was published in 2001 reflecting the recent

spike in the global temperature. Mann tells DiCaprio during his interview that he was “vilified…

called a fraud, was being attacked by Congressman.” The FBI even had to be involved at one

point to examine an envelope that was sent to him that contained some kind of pattern. Mann and

DiCaprio discuss how the population growth over the last several decades makes climate change

an even more difficult problem to solve now than it was then.

After visiting China to firsthand see the smog and speak to authorities on pollution date,

Leonardo finds himself in India. In India, he meets with Sunita Narain, the Director of the Center

for Science and Environment. Their conversation revolves around the climate question that keeps

cropping up – “how do developing nations with fast-rising populations raise standards of living

for all without emitting vast volumes of greenhouse gases?” Narain shares that there are 300

million people without power in India, which DiCaprio equates to being the equal to the entire

population of the United States of America. Their conversation concludes with Narain telling

DiCaprio that American’s consumption is putting a hole in our planet, based on electricity alone.

This film was created to appeal to those who are looking to join or learn more about the

conversation on modern climate change. The people interviewed are doctors, scholars, and
 Wolf 19

experts in their fields, leading me to believe that the information relayed is credible and reliable.

The film was released in 2016, which makes it one of the more recent cinematic takes on global

warming.

I plan to use some of the personal stories and experiences documented in this film to try

and give the reader another real world, global view of what is happening in the world. Again, I

find that the scope and scale can become small when we talk about what we personally have

noticed with climate change, which is why it’s so important to hear from people in other pockets

of the globe who are dealing with the consequences of global warming.