And What Can We Do If It’s Not?
Ice berg & Whaling Ship in 1920 Antarctica
Several scientists have suggested that global warming is due to a naturally occurring 1500 year cycle. If this is true and global warming is a natural event that has occurred many times in the past, are the effects all bad? And if there is a natural warming is there likewise a natural cooling?
I don’t think there is anyone with the least bit of credibility that will argue that the earth as a whole is not undergoing climate change but the cause of such change is another story all together. In fact there are those who argue that climate change is more likely to be part of a constant cycle of warming and cooling that has happened regularly about every 1,500 years for the last million years or so.
Additionally, these same people assert that now and then such cycles can last several hundred years. They are quick to point to the “Medieval Warm Period” (950 AD to 1250 AD) or in the alternative, the “Little Ice Age” (1500 AD to 1850 AD) as proof that such a cycle is not anything new to our climate.
Even if our climate is currently changing to the warm cycle, it is all bad? Cold periods of the past have killed twice as many people as warm periods. This becomes evident when we review the last two thousand years of published human history which shows that the warm periods were typically good for people; the harsh cold periods brought bigger storms, untimely frost, and widespread famine, which were in turn rather difficult for man-kind.
Is human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuel such as coal, responsible for the acceleration of global warming? Worldwide, nearly every major scientific agency or institution that studies climate, oceans or the atmosphere agrees that the global climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.
Even if our climate is currently changing to the warm cycle, it is all bad? Cold periods of the past have killed twice as many people as warm periods. This becomes evident when we review the last two thousand years of published human history which shows that the warm periods were typically good for people; the harsh cold periods brought bigger storms, untimely frost, and widespread famine, which were in turn rather difficult for man-kind.
Is human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuel such as coal, responsible for the acceleration of global warming? Worldwide, nearly every major scientific agency or institution that studies climate, oceans or the atmosphere agrees that the global climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.
When you think about this bold statement for more that just a few seconds, it fails to add up all nice and neat like such proponents say is the case. The key word here is “primary”. In my view it is necessary to implement a little common sense, as is typically necessary when two seemingly valid views are at odds as in this case: Is global warming the result of man-kind or is it a naturally occurring event?
My humble opinion is that when such all inclusive statements are made as an absolute expression of fact, then doubt should be the order of the day. You see the term primary as used in this comment means "the main cause"; not a cause or an equal cause.
The truth to me is that such scientists and the agencies to which they belong know full well that in order to prove them wrong, it would be necessary for everyone on earth to stop burning fossil fuels for the generation of electricity and ban the use of petroleum based fuel in the automobile. What else do these “dooms-day” supporters know for sure? The chances for either of these unlikely actions to occur anytime soon, probably falls into the 0% range.
Perhaps a more productive approach would be to spend all the time and energy that is currently being used for promoting dooms-day, on a genuine effort for developing better ways to burn fossil fuel (like coal) in a cleaner and less harmful way. Additionally, promoting alternatives to the internal combustion engine or simply a cleaner burning fuel for those engines (bio-diesel fuel comes to mind), sounds like a better idea.
The fact is that such futuristic concepts would do a lot of good toward creating a healthier world wide economy. So what, if anything, is bad about that? In such an event, it would no longer matter which faction regarding global warming was / is right.
Sources ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481613/Global-warming-Its-natural-say-experts.html
http://environment.about.com/od/faqglobalwarming/f/gw_faq_hoax.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
No comments:
Post a Comment